"It`s Not Too Much To Ask..." Report

Transcription

IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
APRIL 2007
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 - 05
Why We Started the Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06 - 07
A Landscape of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08 - 11
Unmet Need: Reasons Children Rely on Charities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 13
The Right Equipment:
Wheelchairs and Buggies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 17
Specialist Beds and Sleep Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 19
Specialist Car Seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 21
Specialist Seating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 23
Walkers and Standing Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 25
Reasons for Denying Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 27
A Parent and Child’s Point of View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 29
Early Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 31
What the Families Say . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - 33
Who Meets the Need When the State Fails? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 35
What does the law say? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 - 37
Landscape Statistics:
Local Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 - 41
Primary Care Trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 - 45
The Future of the Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
About BDF Newlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 - 49
The Final Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
References and Thanks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Glossary of Medical Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
This Report is the copyright of BDF Newlife (2007).
BDF, the BDF logo and Birth Defects Foundation are all registered trade marks of BDF Newlife.
For reasons of confidentiality, some names in this Report have been changed.
All statistical information referred to in this Report has been obtained as a result of requests made under the Freedom of
Information Act and BDF is not responsible or liable for any accuracies in the information with which it has been provided.
01
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Foreword
“I hope everyone who cares about the needs of children
born with disabilities will read this report, then act upon it.
When I visited BDF Newlife, an inspiring organisation that
I am privileged to have based in my Cannock Chase
constituency, I was told about the many families with
disabled children who were turning to them and other
charities for help because, where they lived, there was no assistance
available to get even the basic items of equipment necessary for living.
This prompted the BDF Newlife Trustees, their CEO Sheila Brown and her
team at BDF Newlife to set about finding out exactly what was going on
around the country. They asked families, and surveyed Primary Care Trusts
and Local Authorities. I encouraged them to turn their findings into a report
that we could use to campaign for better provision everywhere.
This is that report. It makes disturbing and challenging reading. It's called
It's Not Too Much to Ask because it is surely not too much to ask that
children with disabilities can get the basic equipment they need without
having to turn to charities to provide it.
The report will have served its purpose if it leads to all disabled children
getting the essential equipment they and their families need and deserve.”
Dr. Tony Wright MP
02
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Introduction
Most people would assume that disabled and terminally ill children are protected
and provided for under established laws, using the taxes we pay into our welfare
state system. But we believe this is far from reality for the majority of children in
the UK.
“
...we have been
moved and
appalled, angered
and driven to make
sure this situation
can't continue
”
“
Children grow
quickly and
equipment that
they fit into now will
change every two
or three years.
”
In this report we will reveal the real issues
behind a scandalously poor system of
provision that has left many of these children
without the special equipment they need to
protect them from injury, prevent their
condition worsening, enable them to reach
their full potential and allow them to be cared
for safely.
But what happens when the law is clear and
protects, but the state fails to deliver?
We have found that on average, statutory
services spend little more than £30 per child
on special disability equipment.
The personal outrage and passion of the
families affected inspired us to launch a
petition which has gathered thousands of
signatories to call for change.
As many as a quarter of a million children are
being failed by the state, despite protection by
the law.
In investigating this situation we have achieved
many firsts. We started to look at the issue
when our Nurse Helpline received increased
calls from families about lack of essential
equipment. When we understood that the
current system was failing, we set up a fast
turnaround grants scheme to provide this
equipment ourselves.
What we didn't know at that time was the
speed at which the statutory system of
provision was crumbling. We moved from
funding £37,000 of equipment in the first year,
to £500,000 the following year and three
£750,000 in the last financial year.
In investigating the issues and in writing this
report (and two interim reports) we have been
moved and appalled, angered and driven to
make sure that this situation cannot continue.
Why should this issue matter to you? It matters
because inborn conditions remain the biggest
threat to child health. These and other
conditions such as infections, cause long term
sickness, disability and terminal illness. Many
of these conditions know no boundary of race,
creed, wealth or locality. The child of any family
could be affected. If we fail these, our most
vulnerable and precious children, then what
does this say about our society as a whole?
The UK has one of the most developed welfare
systems in the world. The right to receive such
equipment under this system is laid out in law.
We have spoken to thousands of people about
the situation and the vast majority simply
cannot believe that this scandal is going on.
But the real life experiences of real families up
and down the country have proved how severe
the impact is on children and families.
One of the 'firsts' we have achieved in this
report is to bring together nationwide data
which has never existed before using the
Freedom of Information Act. We have provided
on request this data to the Department of
Health. In the UK there are believed to be in
excess of 770,000 children with disabilities.
We believe that one in three of these children
may be having difficulties in getting essential,
basic equipment. This equates to over a
quarter of a million children.
The majority of inborn conditions which affect
children do so from birth or their baby years,
when dependency on the care of others is
total. We know that children's conditions in
particular can worsen rapidly as they grow.
Timely provision is essential. They simply
cannot face lengthy waits. Children grow
quickly and equipment that they fit into today,
will change every two or three years. Being on
a 12 month plus waiting list for equipment is
simply not practical.
As an independent charity receiving no
state/government funding we can reflect the
voices of the children and their families who
are affected by these failings.
In this report are personal stories which show
the problems they face. More than 250
families wrote their personal stories on our
website showing for the first time the types
and complexities of failure of provision all over
the UK.
03
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
We have seen pictures of children terribly
injured, of children needing emergency
admissions to hospitals, who needed surgery
and therapy - all resulting from a lack of
appropriate equipment or due to extended
delays in providing equipment.
We have heard of parents who suffer illness
and injury as a result of caring for growing
children and we know of families who get into
major debt trying to help their child when
statutory services fail. We have met children
who cannot go to school - no wheelchair, who
have had to sleep on a mattress on the floor no bed to keep them safe, and children who
are clearly in pain and distress as ill-fitting
equipment fails them.
From the teenage boy who loses his dignity as
his mother washes him in the garage - as she
is no longer able to carry him upstairs and
there is no equipment to help her - to the child
who died in pain before the essential
equipment he needed was delivered.
We also heard for the first time, in confidence,
of the frustrations and experiences of frontline
caring health and social care professionals as
they struggle seeing children's
conditions worsen, seeing their pain,
seeing the effects on families as
the essential equipment needed
is denied them by the
statutory services.
So what equipment is being refused? It's not
luxury items, but essential equipment for
which proper assessment by qualified medical
and therapeutic professionals has been made
and includes mobility equipment, beds,
seating, communication equipment, hoists and
car seats.
We have for the first time established legal
opinion that confirms that the statutory
services should be providing this equipment
based on the needs of the child.
Simply explained, Government provides funds
for health provision through the Primary Care
Trusts (PCTs) throughout the country. In Wales,
Scotland and Northen Ireland PCTs are also
known as Health Boards and Trusts.
Government fund Local Authorities also known
as Councils to provide welfare services
through grants and social service provision.
“
Our son died
before his
equipment was
delivered
“
”
He cries in
pain - crammed
into a chair that
no longer fits
”
04
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
In some areas of the
UK, BDF Newlife has
spent more money on
equipment in that area
than the PCT or the
Local Authority.
Angus, aged 10,
Hampshire
“Angus has severe Cerebral
Palsy affecting all his body,
he has limitations of
independent movement and
cannot sit or stand without
specialist supportive
equipment.
He needed new seating for a
manual and powered chair as
he has grown. We applied to
Wheelchair Services who
assessed him and agreed he
needed new supportive
seating, but their policy is
one piece of equipment per
child because of funding.
This decision meant that we
worried how we would cope
with one seat as transferring
Angus would be hard as he is
vulnerable in all positions. I
try my best but I am not
superwoman. It gets you
down. I’m not asking for the
world, just some help.”
How these statutory services then use these
funds and discharge the duties placed upon
them by Government and the law is up to
decisions made locally.
But there is much to do. Will the Department
of Health review and new system of equipment
provision, planned to be in operation by
autumn 2007, be fit for purpose?
This report details PCT and Local Authority
spending. Many of these bodies failed to reply
to us, despite the request being made under
the FOI Act.
There are pockets of good practice, areas
where children get the help they need, places
where they know it's not too much to ask. If
these areas can do it, so can the whole
country. Achieving a reasonable level of
provision is not impossible.
When you see the spending levels, we are sure
you will find children in many areas of the
country are poorly served or failed and in
some cases there has been no spending at all
on these children.
In processing over 1,000 grants, we have for
the first time collected data on the reasons
given as to why statutory services have denied
or failed to provide equipment, despite the
child being professionally assessed for it.
We have also achieved another first in looking
at 'unmet need', to understand what happens
when statutory services deny equipment to
children. Looking at unmet need has meant
that we can also establish the impact on
charities, who are often called upon to ‘plug
the gap’ when the state fails to provide for
children with disabilities.
We hope the report is hard hitting because the
effect on children and families of not delivering
services is hard and grim. We have many
examples where we have named and hopefully
shamed some local areas into
making changes for the future.
We believe our campaign has been
influential in getting Ministers to
write to the Chief Executives of
Primary Care Trusts and Local
Authorities setting the provision of
equipment as a key challenge for
07/08. We also believe that the
Department of Heath review
Transforming Community
Equipment Services Project
announced in June 2006 has been
a valuable outcome following the launch of our
campaign earlier that year.
In the meantime we will continue to help as
many children as our resources allow by
making grants, because for us and for other
charities it is not an option to sit back and see
suffering without action.
When you read this report ask yourself, what if
it was my child? No-one ever thinks their
family will be affected. As the mother of a
disabled child I know the difficulties. I didn't
think it would happen to me. It did and every
day in the UK around 124 babies will be born
with inborn conditions.
If we ignore the contents of this report, we
continue to play a part in allowing this
institutionalised failing to continue.
Don't just put this report aside. Pledge to help
us challenge, change and provide so that with
your help, voice and actions we can ensure
every special child in our country is provided
for. It's not too much to ask.
Mrs. Sheila Brown OBE
FRSM
CEO
BDF Newlife
05
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Leah, aged 3,
Staffordshire
“Leah has Cerebral Palsy. Her
family were forced to turn to
BDF Newlife when her PCT
told them there was no
funding available for the new
walker Leah desperately
needed.
Leah’s mum said "Straight
away it's clear that this will
give Leah a lot more freedom.
The walking frame she had
before was really rickety, so
she couldn't use it outside
and we had to keep hold of
her all the time. It means we
will now be able to go to the
park properly and she can
walk around on her own. It's
fantastic to get a new chair
and walker, we're very
grateful to everyone who has
helped. It'll make such a
difference to her and what a
fantastic time to get it, just
before Christmas.”
Photo courtesy of
The Sentinel, Stoke on Trent.
06
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Why We Started
the Campaign
Who should be providing equipment to disabled children?
In the Spring of 2004, we started to receive calls to our Nurse Helpline from families
who could not get the equipment they needed - such as specialist beds, buggies,
wheelchairs, standing frames and car seats.
To help these children we started our Child
and Family Grant Scheme. In March 2006 we
noted a substantial increase in applications
from families unable to get this essential
equipment. So much so that the amount of
money spent by BDF Newlife in providing
equipment to children with disabilities had
increased from approximately £37,000 to
£500,000.
We used our network of contacts to appeal to
families and professionals to tell us about their
struggle to get the right equipment for their
disabled and terminally ill children.
Dear BDF Newlife...
“The prolonged lack of
appropriate seating for my
daughter Autumn has been
the cause of so much anxiety
and strain, both physical and
mental. Parents should not
have to resort to asking for
charity support, something
must be done to improve
therapy and equipment
provision for disabled young
people. Most parents are too
exhausted to challenge and
challenge again the short
sighted approaches of local
authorities who seem
determined to deny our
children the support they
need.”
We were staggered by the response. They
revealed long delays in assessments,
applications being denied, children being
injured, conditions worsening and parents
being forced to pay for equipment by credit
card or through finance, rather than see their
child suffer.
So we questioned, who is responsible for
providing this equipment?
In recent years the Government has increased
the amount of power it devolves to its
statutory agencies. Budgets, responsibilities
and pivotal decisions are passed over to
agencies such as Primary Care Trusts, Local
Authorities and their Local Education
Authorities. The principle behind this is to give
flexibility and choice in each area. However,
this devolution of power has lead to a
'shambolic' postcode lottery of provision.
We see the provision of such equipment
can be through the following bodies or their
equivalents. It may vary in different areas
off the UK, but essentially, they are the
following:
Primary Care Trusts
Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) were set up to
provide people with the care that they initially
require locally when they have a health
problem (for example doctors and dentist
surgeries, opticians and pharmacies). PCTs
combine services that were previously
organised and managed separately, such as
general practitioners, community health
services, social care and support services.
PCTs work with local authorities and agencies
that provide health and social care to meet the
needs of the community.
The current Government has devolved the
majority of the NHS funding to Primary Care
Trusts or General Practitioners who purchase
healthcare from the hospitals. These new
purchasers have little specialist expertise in
making decisions about specialist equipment
and yet they will have 80% of the annual NHS
budget. We have even spoken to several
PCTs, who were unaware of any department
or service that deal with children and
disabilities in their area. In simple terms, PCTs
are responsible for providing wheelchairs,
specialist buggies and equipment for health
purposes like specialist beds.
In addition to PCTs, most major hospitals will
have a multidisciplinary Child Development
Centre where Paediatricians, Physiotherapists,
Speech Therapists and Occupational
Therapists work together to help disabled
children.
Over the years they have acquired a great
deal of expertise in managing the special
needs of disabled children. In the past the
selection of appropriate aids would have been
made through these centres, but they have
been put under increasing financial pressure
as hospital budgets are being cut.
07
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
“long delays in assessments, applications being
denied, children being injured, conditions
worsening and parents being forced to pay for
equipment by credit card or through finance”
Local Authorities
Members of Parliament
Central and Local Government share
responsibility for children's services. It is
within Local Authorities' remit that Social
Services Department and Children with
Disabilities Teams work to provide equipment
to aid a disabled child's welfare. Local
Authorities are also responsible for giving
LEAs a budget so that provision of equipment
to aid disabled children at school can be
made. The money comes from what the
Government sets out to be a reasonable and
affordable level of spending on education.
BDF Newlife wrote to 335 of the 646 Members
of Parliament telling them about the plight of
individual children in their own constituencies.
Each local authority must set its own education
budget, taking account of local priorities. Once
budgets are delegated, schools' governing
bodies take decisions on precisely how to
deploy the resources available.
Many of the problems that we see are based
on confusion about who funds what. Families
are confused and in many cases so are the
professionals. So having finally established
who is responsible, we focused on how much
PCTs and Local Authorities had spent on such
equipment in the last financial year 2005-06.
We asked Government sources to no avail. No
one knew. We asked PCTs and Local
Authorities but many did not respond and in
the end we used the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 and we were finally able to see the
extent of the under funding.
We analysed data from England first and were
appalled at the level of spending and decided
it would be in the public interest to release the
information for England first. We then went on
to analyse the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland
was unable to provide comprehensive and
accurate statistics, therefore we are only able
to add figures for Scotland and Wales.
We have received nearly 60 responses from
MPs offering to intervene on behalf of their
constituents. Almost 40 have offered to back
our campaign led by Labour MP for Cannock
Chase, Dr Tony Wright. We received no replies
from 191 MPs. We explained that we would
contact them each time we awarded a Child
and Family Grant in their constituency and we
enclosed the child's Grant Authorisation Form
to explain why they needed the equipment
and why we had to fund it.
Many MPs said they were willing to take up
individual cases where support had not been
made available and wrote to their local PCT
demanding answers. Some received letters
back from the Department of Health
explaining that the situation should improve
when a spending review is completed.
The intervention by other MPs has in some
cases lead to a reversal in the PCTs decision,
however many MPs questions went
unanswered. If MPs cannot even get a reply to
their questions, what hope is there for
individual families?
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Kiera, aged 15,
South West England
“Kiera has Cerebral Palsy and
is blind. Kiera needs a special
wheelchair to help her to
stand to prevent her legs
getting too rigid. She gets
tired easily and needs to
alternate from sitting to lying
down.
To get this equipment our
physiotherapist applied to the
disablement centre with
Wheelchair Services.
However, we had to wait
around two years before we
were even actually assessed.
After the assessment they
said they could not find
anything suitable and have no
way of getting the equipment.
This decision meant that we
were unable to go out as a
family.
We would like decision
makers to know that this type
of wheelchair does exist and
by saying they ‘don’t know of
anything suitable’ is sheer
ignorance. How are charities
able to do assessments and
fund equipment and they
can’t?”
08
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
‘A Landscape of Failure’
BDF Newlife used information gathered with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000
to reveal the scale of failure in the state funding system for obtaining specialist
equipment for disabled and terminally ill children across England, Scotland and Wales.
Such equipment is funded by Government
through Primary Care Trusts and Local
Authorities. The investigation showed some
areas have spent nothing, others have spent
very little on equipment, which includes
wheelchairs, specially adapted beds and
hoists. Many of these bodies reported not
knowing what they spent and some told the
charity it could only have the information if it
was prepared to pay for it, which we have
declined to do.
Based on the information that we received, the
following is a list of the highest and lowest
spending Primary Care Trusts in the UK. A full
breakdown of all of the responses from statutory
services can be found at the back of this report.
In using the FOI Act we also found an
astonishingly high level of statutory services
failing to reply, despite the legal requirement
to do so within the Act.
• PCT refused permission to release data
The investigation has found on average that
PCTs and Local Authorities in England,
Scotland and Wales were spending on
average as little as £30.42 on equipment for
each disabled and terminally ill child, £19.73
coming from the PCT and £10.69 from the
Local Authority.
Aaron,
Worcestershire
“Aaron has Duchene
Muscular Dystrophy, a
terminal muscle wasting
condition. We needed an
electric wheelchair and to be
honest at the moment if feels
like you name it, he needs it.
BDF provided the grant for
the wheelchair. Without it he
wouldn’t be able to go out of
the house as he can’t walk.”
BDF revealed that because children continue
to grow, the potential spend for complex
needs will average £20,000 per child, as
wheelchairs can cost anywhere between
£3,000 and £16,000, specialist beds come in
at around £2,500 and adapted car seats are
around £1,500. It is believed there are
770,000 disabled children in the UK*
Primary Care Trusts
Eighty-nine percent of PCTs responded to our
Freedom of Information request.
Of those PCTs only 65% could provide a
statistic. Thirty-five percent were unable to
provide the information or provided us with
incomplete data.
On average PCTs spent only £45,613.57 on
equipment for all disabled and terminally ill
children in their area.
Four English PCTs reported in writing spending
nothing at all on this type of equipment. These
were North Devon, North East Lincolnshire,
South Tyneside and Wyre Forest.
10 lowest spending Primary Care Trusts
• Harlow PCT
£ 504.00
• Mendip PCT
£ 547.00
• South Western Staffordshire PCT
£1,000.00
• West Hull PCT
£1,603.00
• Blackwater Valley and Hart PCT
North Hampshire PCT
£3,000.00
• Hyndburn and Ribble Valley PCT
£4,336.99
• Central Cheshire PCT
£4,341.40
• Eastern Hull PCT
£ 4,475.00
• Uttlesford PCT
£4,545.12
10 highest spending Primary Care Trusts
• Somerset Coast PCT
£191,110.00
• Nottingham City PCT
Broxtowe and Hucknall PCT
Gedling PCT, Rushcliffe PCT
£226,075.00
• Lambeth PCT
£227,196.00
• Newham PCT
£246,275.00
• North Liverpool PCT
Central Liverpool PCT
£260,906.47
• Central Suffolk PCT,
Suffolk Coastal PCT
Suffolk West PCT
£264,919.40
• West Gloucestershire PCT
£293,000.00
• Stockport PCT
£302,592.00
• Huddersfield Central PCT
South Huddersfield PCT
£303,367.00
• Southampton City PCT
£441,820.28
We recognise that the size and populations of
the PCTs and local authorities will differ widely
accross the UK. We will leave it up to the
public and the affected families in these areas
to judge if spending is sufficient or not.
09
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
“because children continue to grow,
the potential spend for complex needs
will average £20,000 per child”
Local Authorities
10 lowest spending Local Authorities
We received replies from 93.5% of Local
Authorities to our Freedom of Information
request. Of those LAs who responded, only
30% could provide a statistic. 56% percent
claimed not to be responsible. 6.5% failed to
respond to the Freedom of Information
request within 60 days (three times the
recommended limit under the Freedom of
Information Act) and 7.5% could not respond
or failed to provide complete statistics.
• Gwynedd County Council
The average Local Authority spent only
£58,777.16 on equipment for all disabled and
terminally ill children in their area.
The total amount paid out in equipment
grants by BDF Newlife in 2005/6 was just
over £500,000. This is substantially more
than the total spent by any of the PCTs and
local authorities who replied. As we will see
later in this report charities are filling the
statutory services gap.
• Carlisle City Council
CAMPAIGN REPORT
£850.30
£1,200.00
• Conwy County Borough Council £1,676.00
• Swansea City and
Borough Council
• City of London
£3,500.00
£3,659.00
• Hounslow London
Borough Council
£4,074.00
• Blackpool Borough Council
£5,680.00
• Denbighshire County Council
£6,601.00
• Ceredigion County Council
£6,823.07
• East Dunbartonshire Council
£6,834.09
10 highest spending Local Authorities
• Western Isles Council
£159,972.10
• Newham London
Borough Council
£167,972.03
• Lancashire County Council
£179,818.00
• Lincolnshire County Council
£225,434.00
• Sunderland City Council
£226,392.52
• Glasgow City Council
£229,628.00
• Surrey County Council
£230,000.00
• Hertfordshire County Council £244,816.00
• Cornwall County Council
£250,000.00
• Kirklees Metropolitan
Borough Council
£301,766.26
This information is based on the written responses that we recieved and understand as being complete and relevant to the
period
2005/2006. Statutory authorities who failed to respond or who provided incomplete or unusable data may have
spent more or less than the statutory authorities listed here but we have no data to define this position.
Cael, a little boy
in the UK
“Cael is blind and has
Cerebral Palsy. We needed a
car seat. BDF provided a
grant for the equipment. If
they hadn’t Cael would have
been travelling unsafely to his
appointments. The grant
allowed Cael to travel in
safety as well as more
comfortably.
We would like to say thank
you so much for your help.
The first time we saw the car
seat we couldn’t believe the
difference. Cael was much
more secure in the seat and
this was needed so much, as
disabled children certainly
need the extra restraint and
support for them to feel
safe.”
10
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
‘A Landscape of Failure’
Average PCT Spend
2005/2006
• England
£45,500.16
• Scotland
£47,971.00
• Wales
£29,987.66
Tanisha aged 7 and
Jackson aged 9,
South East England
What this data shows:
“Both of the children have
infantile Battens Disease.
They are terminally ill, have
epilepsy, are blind,
gastrostomy fed and are
completely reliant on us as
parents for all of their needs.
We needed a sleep system
for the children. This was
funded by BDF Newlife. This
was really great news for us
as you were the first charity
we applied to, we are so
grateful. This will improve
our children’s short lives.
Without this equipment, we
all suffer mentally and
physically. Why should the
disabled have to fight all the
time for equipment? My
children are dying, let there
be quality in their lives as
there is little quantity.”
PCTs
Scotland is the top average spending PCT.
England closely follows.
Wales is the lowest average spending area.
Local Authorities
England is spending the most on average.
Scotland follows but with a large gap.
Wales is the lowest spending area on
average.
Average Local Authority Spend
2005/2006
• England
£64,691.65
• Scotland
£46,783.61
• Wales
£32,253.03
This information is based on the data supplied under
the Freedom of Information Act.
11
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
23%
Combined Funding
• England
£110,191.81
• Scotland
£94,754.61
• Wales
£62,240.69
42%
35%
North / South Divide
What this data means:
Combined PCT and Local
Authority
North - £114,468.83
48%
52%
South - £106,110.03
This is an unusual finding as it
indicates children in the North have
more spent on them than those in
the south.
FUNDING
South England
North England
Average PCT Spend
2005/2006
• North England
£44,110.39
• South England
£46,875.30
Average Local Authority Spend
2005/2006
• North England
£70,358.44
• South England
£59,234.73
12
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Unmet Need: Reasons
Children Rely on Charities
“
We cannot negate
real need by not
making a budget
provision to meet it.
“
”
A child’s need
must outway
blanket policies
”
Alex, aged 20 months,
Southern England
“Alex has Cerebral Palsy. He
needed a pushchair with
postural support and so we
applied to Wheelchair
Services. Eight months on we
are still waiting for an
assessment. I was advised
that I could be moved up the
priority list if I say my son is
getting sores. This is so
frustrating - how can I expect
to move up the list if others
are also being encouraged to
lie?”
Every time a Child and Family Grant application is made, we receive a letter from
a professional involved in the child's care detailing the reasons why the family has
had to approach a charity.
In the year that this campaign has been
running, we have received and analysed
almost 600 letters from professionals involved
in the care of disabled children; children who
are being refused basic, essential equipment.
These include Social Workers, Occupational
Therapists, Physiotherapists, Key Workers
and Hospital Consultants. Each one of these
professionals has detailed to BDF Newlife the
reasons why these children have been
refused equipment.
The following are a few examples of what
we received:
• From a professional in Staffordshire about a
16-year-old boy with Cerebral Palsy
needing a specialist seat, his last seat had
lasted him for eight years: “Unfortunately
Social Services have never provided
seating for comfort / change of
position…budgets are limited.”
BDF NEWLIFE SAYS: We find this
statement remarkable, surely most people
use seating for comfort or to change
position. Why would a disabled child be
any different?
• From another professional in Staffordshire
about a four-year-old boy with Autism
needing a specialist buggy: “Parents have
been informed that there is no local NHS
funding for the next two years as the
budget has been spent.”
BDF NEWLIFE SAYS: This is simply not
good enough. A lack of fiscal planning at
the start of each year, when it is known
there are needs, is inexcusable. We cannot
negate real need by not making a budget
provision to meet it.
• From a professional in Plymouth about a
five-year-old girl with Achrondroplasia
needing a powered wheelchair:
“A powered chair will not be provided to
anyone who can walk a few steps indoors”
BDF NEWLIFE SAYS: These few steps are
laboured, unsteady and continued attempts
to walk can cause pain and even worsening
of a condition. The individually assessed
needs of a child are what is important and
must outweigh such blanket policies and is
a child's legal right.
• From an SEN Co-ordinator in the South East
about a nine-year-old girl with a genetic
condition needing specialist seating:
“Unfortunately in order to fund the buying of
this, we would have to look at reducing her
hours of (educational) support.”
BDF NEWLIFE SAYS: This is scandalous.
How are professionals meant to decide
between the conflict of providing
desperately needed educational support to
a child or essential seating for postural
management? The whole child's needs
should be fully met, not bargained for in
such a way.
• From a Paediatric Physiotherapist in Surrey
about a four-year-old boy with severe
Cerebral Palsy: “The Wheelchair Service
will not consider the child for an electric
wheelchair at present (and certainly not this
type) as they feel he is too young.”
BDF NEWLIFE SAYS: Presuming that most
children are walking at around two years of
age, how can four-years-old be too young
for a child with Cerebral Palsy to become
mobile? This attitude smacks of
discrimination due to disability. The
National Service Framework for Children,
Young people and Maternity Services 2004
Report sets the standard that “children and
young people who are disabled or who
have complex health needs receive coordinated, high-quality child and family-
13
“there are no funds available”
“beds are always a contentious issue
regarding where the responsibility for
funding and provision lies”
centred services which are based on
assessed needs, which promote social
inclusion and, where possible, which
enable them and their families to live
ordinary lives.”
This child wasn't given the opportunity to
demonstrate if he could use such a chair,
so we see unlawful blanket policy.
From a professional in Northampton about
a three-year-old girl with Cerebral Palsy
needing a specialist buggy: “Unfortunately
the criteria in this health authority for
funding of wheelchairs is very tight and I
understand that our Occupational
Therapists are now only providing chairs for
indoor use at home.”
BDF NEWLIFE SAYS: Can it be right that a
child is housebound through lack of
equipment, of course not. Any child needs
stimulation from the outside world. To deny
it, on the basis of cost, and under a blanket
policy is a double whammy of failure.
• From a professional in Northern Ireland
about a nine-year-old girl with Rett
Syndrome needing a standing frame. This
little girl was given six months to improve
her standing otherwise she would need
painful surgery: “At present due to
continuing cut backs and lack of funding
within the South-Eastern Education and
Library Board of Northern Ireland, funds are
no longer available for large pieces of
therapy equipment.”
BDF NEWLIFE SAYS: This child would
face painful and expensive surgery,
expensive recovery, rehabilitation and after
care and / or because of a principal failure
of finances / policy. Surgery should not be
an answer to such provision failure. Early
intervention works and must be the active
policy to protect all children.
• From an OT in Hampshire about a six-year-
old girl with Rett Syndrome needing a
specialist bed and seating. The bed this
little girl was in had caused her injury and
was proving increasingly dangerous for her
to sleep in: “As the social services budget
has been frozen until April, I am unable to
get these pieces of equipment to the child
quickly which I feel could be detrimental to
her physical health and her family.”
BDF NEWLIFE SAYS: When a qualified
professional uses their skills and make an
assessment of actual need (not “it would
be useful”) there is a clear legal obligation
to make the provision so such failures are
unlawful as they leave a child at significant
risk. There is little point in having valuable,
qualified staff to do this job if statutory
services ignore their assessments. How
long until a child dies?
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
“
Surgery should
not be an answer
to such provision
faliure
“
”
Can it be right
that a child is
housebound
because of lack
of equipment?
”
• From an OT in Devon about a six-year-old girl
with Sanfilippo Syndrome needing a special
sleep system: “There would be great difficulty
in securing funding for the sleep system
needed. This is because we are seriously
overspent on our equipment budget and
beds are always a contentious issue
regarding where the responsibility for funding
and provision lies.”
BDF NEWLIFE SAYS: There is no need for
such provision to be contentious. The
child's assessed needs and welfare are
paramount. Too many times we hear about
inter-department squabbling - is a special
bed a health need or a welfare need?
These squabbles should be resolved by
creating local good practice agreements.
• From a Family Support Worker in South
Wales about a 16-year-old boy with
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy needing a
portable hoist: “There are no funds
available”
BDF NEWLIFE SAYS: The condition won't
go away or stop worsening whether the
problem with this was “no budget set” or
“all budget spent”. This child's needs
continue and therefore his care needs to
continue. Too many parents/carers suffer
injury through lifting and carrying because
hoists are denied.
Kieran, aged 8
“Kieran has Cerebral Palsy
and needed a walking frame,
he outgrew his old one
months ago. The NHS
refused it because of a lack of
funding. He stoops now as he
walks which will worsen his
condition. We try so hard
with Physios to improve his
condition and help him meet
his potential.
I have complained to the
commissioner of the PCT by
e-mail and letter, I haven’t
even had a acknowledgement
from him.”
14
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
The
Right
Equip
Wheelchairs and Buggies
Having the correct wheelchair can give a child independence, safety and
confidence.
Through our Child and Family Grant Scheme
we have provided wheelchairs to children
that range from £300 to almost £17,000. With
over 29% of families with a disabled child in
or near poverty, many children are unable to
get the equipment that they so desperately
need. Buggies for children with disabilities
are often ten times the price of a standard
buggy; costing between £180 and £3,000, for
families who need this equipment but are
unable to get it, the family home can become
their prison. As a charity we hear of many
families who are unable to get a suitable
buggy through statutory services.
Natalie, aged 8,
South East Eatgland
“Natalie is unable to stand or
walk and uses a powered
wheelchair. We required a
wheelchair accessible
exercise machine. We never
gave up badgering the NHS,
social services, charities etc
for items that allow our
daughter to participate in all
that her able-bodied twin
sister does.
We appreciate that equipment
is expensive given the small
volumes involved, but our
total outlay on powered
wheelchairs, lightweight
manual wheelchairs, adapted
trikes and an adapted car is
tens of thousands of pounds.
Charities are our lifeline in
terms of promoting our
daughter’s confidence and
independence.”
We understand that the main problems
families face are:
• It is well accepted that has Wheelchair
Services are under-funded. We believe that
because of this under-funding Wheelchair
Services have had to put in place strict
criteria to limit the amount of children they
provide wheelchairs to. We hear of children
who are denied wheelchairs because they
can take two or three steps and children
who are refused powered wheelchairs
because their conditions are not
degenerative, despite these children being
unable to propel the manual wheelchairs
themselves.
• Assessments for wheelchair provision is
based purely on ‘clinical’ needs. Because
of this, Wheelchair Services are only
required to provide the basic equipment,
unbelievably they often do not cater for
‘lifestyle’ needs such as education or
independence.
• Each Wheelchair Service Department
across the county interprets the guidelines
differently; therefore we believe provision is
often a ‘postcode lottery’.
• Children are often placed on lengthy
waiting lists that can lead to a deterioration
in their health / welfare.
• Equipment is rationed to a one piece of
equipment per child policy. This can mean
that a child needing a wheelchair for their
mobility and a standing frame for their
posture will be forced to go without.
• Most children who are provided with a
wheelchair or buggy are offered the very
basic; this type of equipment is rarely
suitable or will fully meet their needs.
• The child’s disability is not considered
physical (for example autism and ADHD)
so a buggy / wheelchair will not be
provided. However, if a child cannot walk,
for whatever reason, then statutory
services should meet their needs.
• Children not fitting increasingly rigorous
age criteria; we have been told about
Wheelchair Services that do not see
children under the age of five.
• Wheelchair Services refusing to provide
specialist buggies for children with
disabilities, arguing that families with
children without disabilities would also
have to buy a buggy. This policy doesn’t
take into account the fact that the cost of a
specialist buggy can be ten times the cost
of a standard buggy.
The current failing system
Following a review commissioned by the
Department of Health and Social Security in
1989, the Disabled Services Authority (DSA)
was set up to manage the NHS Wheelchair
Service. On 31st March 1991 the DSA was
terminated and the management of
Wheelchair Services in England was passed
to Local Health Authorities and Trusts. This
devolution of power has led to inconsistency
and variations in standards, management
structures, funding and service.
Below is the lengthy and difficult process a
family will go through to get a wheelchair or
specialist buggy for their child. At each stage
there is an opportunity for delay:
• A referral form from a GP is passed on to
the local Wheelchair Service
• The Occupational Therapist then arranges
a meeting with the child at a children's
wheelchair clinic to assess clinical needs,
i.e. size, weight, height etc.
15
“to get an assessment we
waited a total of 12 months”
mentgg
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
“we don’t ask for equipment on a whim, it's
because we NEED it and it is either a medical
necessity or improves our children’s quality of life”
• A report is drawn up by the OT
Re-assessment:
• Report from the OT is forwarded on to a
budget meeting where applications are
scrutinised. Applications for the budget
meeting are prioritised according to need.
It is at this stage that applications for
outdoor wheelchairs may be refused.
If a child’s needs change, or they grow out of
the wheelchair provided, it is suggested by
the Wheelchair Service to contact their GP or
return to the Wheelchair Service that
provided them with the wheelchair initially.
Wheelchair Services often do not provide a
formal re-assessment plan; therefore the
responsibility for checking that the
wheelchair is still suitable for the child lies
with families. In some areas a child may be
re-assessed if they attend a special needs
school where a Physiotherapist or
Occupational Therapist from a Disability
Services team visits. In these circumstances,
the therapist can contact both the family of
the child and the Wheelchair Service to
suggest re-assessment. In reality, we found
that this rarely happens. Often therapists only
suggest a re-assessment of a wheelchair
when the child’s clinical needs are no longer
being met, for example an increase in
height/size, and the family are often then on
a lengthy waiting list for an appointment.
• If the application does pass the budget
meeting, there are three options available
to the family - see below.
Wheelchair Scheme options / NHS
Vouchers:
There are three options for children requiring
wheelchairs:
1. Accept the wheelchair offered by the NHS
(this is usually a basic style manual
wheelchair such as a ‘Blade’). Under this
scheme the NHS owns the wheelchair and
is responsible for its maintenance and
repair. The family/child can also opt for one
of the following schemes (2 and 3 below)
using the Voucher Scheme. The Voucher
Scheme (introduced in 1996) was designed
to enable disabled people to use their own
money to buy a specification of wheelchair,
which is not normally provided by the NHS.
The NHS then provides a voucher to the
disabled person, for the value of an NHS
specification wheelchair. (This scheme is
only available in England).
2. Families can choose to contribute to the
cost of a more expensive wheelchair.
However, under this option/scheme the
child/family will own the chair and the NHS
are not responsible for its maintenance and
repair. This is called the 'Independent
Option'.
3. Families can chose to contribute to the
cost of a more expensive wheelchair
chosen from a selection approved by the
local Wheelchair Service. Under this
scheme the NHS owns the chair and is
therefore responsible for its maintenance
and repair. This is called the 'Partnership
Option'.
We have heard of families waiting 27 to 37
weeks just to be reassessed by an OT. We
have even been told of a Wheelchair Service
that hasn’t assessed a child in three years,
they have no money.
This process applies to children needing both
manual and powered wheelchairs. However,
the process for getting a powered wheelchair
often incurs much longer delays and is more
likely to be refused than a manual wheelchair.
We often hear of children left housebound
because they are refused an electric
wheelchair and teenagers who are forced to
be pushed around school in a manual
wheelchair by carers because they cannot
propel their wheelchairs themselves.
We believe that if a child needs a powered
wheelchair, statutory services should provide it.
“
We have enough
to do already
without the hassle
we get from people
who are supposed
to help us
”
Mother in the
South West
“It's time families stopped
having to jump through
hoops in order to get
equipment. If equipment is
needed there should be a
seamless system for its
provision and a totally
independent supervisory
panel which can be contacted
immediately if the 'powers
that be' start messing you
around. We all have enough
to do already without the
addition of the hassle we get
from people who are
supposed to help us!”
16
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
“David can roll beside me to nursery, go from activity
to activity, he plays chasing with his friends, and his
self-esteem and confidence blossomed.”
CAMPAIGN REPORT
A Family’s Story
This is David's story.
David is four years old and has a terminal
condition. His story is told by his parents.
“David has a diagnosis of Spinal Muscular
Atrophy II - severe muscle weakness, has
never stood / crawled, will become weaker
as his body becomes heavier. At risk from
chest infections, the condition is terminal.”
“David needed a powered wheelchair. We
applied to the Wheelchair Clinic for this. To
get an assessment we waited a total of 12
months.”
“We were refused because the NHS does
not fund powered wheelchairs; they will provide a standard chair, which does not provide the child with accessibility for outdoor
use. The NHS does not believe a powered
wheelchair is needed for a young child as
they can still fit in a pram.”
“This decision left us in despair, we had a
bright lively child who wanted to be independent and access all the activities his
peers could at nursery etc. He did not want
to be pushed around in a pram, especially
when we met up with his friends.”
Hope, aged 13,
South Coast England
“Hope has gastric
abnormalities, is blind,
epileptic and has Cerebral
Palsy. She likes to do
everything her friends do but
she can't. She cries a lot
about this, it breaks my heart.
Disabled children are treated
like second class citizens.
These children didn't ask to
be born this way, they
haven't taken drugs or
abused their bodies, I think
that if they need something,
they should have it.”
“We couldn't afford the chair without assistance and it broke our heart to see what he
could have had.”
“If BDF Newlife had not been able to
approve a grant we would have bought it
with a loan or credit card or through family
which would have put us in more debt. The
chair is only part of the cost - there's the
maintenance, insurance, ramps for the car
and it's on top of all the other equipment we
need for David. The grant provided the balance we needed to buy the powered wheelchair and within six weeks we had his chair.
David can roll beside me to nursery, go from
activity to activity, he plays chasing with his
friends, and his self-esteem and confidence
blossomed. I can open the door and off he
goes! It's terrific for him and us as a family.”
“We would like to tell decision-makers that
we don't ask for equipment on a whim, it's
because we NEED it and it is either a medical necessity or improves our children's
quality of life, which as a parent to a disabled child is VERY important.”
In the three year period that BDF Newlife has
been providing Child and Family Grants, 135
wheelchairs and specialist buggies have
been given to children with disabilities. With
each of these grants, we have been given
the reason by a professional that the family
has had to apply for charitable funding.
Below is a breakdown of these reasons.
FUNDING
No funding available
No Budget
Total: 39%
34%
35%
POLICY
Equipment rationing
Does not meet the
criteria
Do not provide the type
of equipment
Do not provide
specification of the
equipment
4%
4%
16%
7%
Total: 61%
People may assume that a lack of funds is the main reason for refusing to provide wheelchairs to
disabled children. However, in many cases statutory services are setting policies to ‘ration out’
funds and calling it ‘policy decisions’ which disguises underfunding. Wheelchairs are costly items
so if low budgets are set they are very quickly eaten up. Statutory services need to assess each
child based on their needs and properly plan financially for replacements and upgrades.
17
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
“
Our kids should
be treated as
individuals
”
Aaron, aged 5,
South East
“Aaron has severe Autism
and needs 24/7 care. We
needed a special buggy. We
applied to our social services.
After waiting nine months for
an assessment we were
refused the buggy because
they said that as Aaron's
disability was not physical he
was not eligible. Our kids
should be treated as the
individuals that they are, just
because they don't have a
physical disability doesn't
mean they are not physically
disabled.”
“This decision left us in despair, we had
a bright lively child who wanted to be
independent and access all the activities
his peers could at nursery”
Pictured: Andy, Stafffordshire, in equipment BDF Newlife helped to fund.
18
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
The
Right
Equip
Specialist Beds and
Sleep Systems
Beds are a vital piece of equipment for many children with disabilities and the
families that care for them. The right bed can benefit a child and their parents in
many ways. A specialist bed will provide postural support and prevent deformities
and contractures. Some children require tube feeding overnight and a bed that tilts
is essential.
Rebecca aged 16,
Worcestershire
Using equipment supplied by
BDF Newlife
Sura, aged 9, London
“Sura has Noonan Syndrome
and is fed through a tube. We
moved house last year and
needed a bed. Social services
refused to assess her for the
bed, they just said “sorry, we
don't supply furniture”. Sura
had to spend several weeks
sleeping on the floor which
posed potential risks. She
could have kicked the heavy
feeding machine and it could
have fallen on her and caused
injury or the tube could have
twisted around her neck while
she was sleeping.”
For the most severely affected children, their
bed will be the place that they spend most of
their time, this is the reason that statutory
services must get it right.
For the carers it is vital that the bed is height
adjustable so that they are able to provide
care quickly and effectively. Some children
need beds that have high or padded sides,
this is particularly true of children with
behavioural disorders.
Sleep systems are a key part of any 24-hour
postural management programme for children
who cannot independently alter their position
during the night. Failure to provide an
adequate sleeping system leaves children at
risk of developing an asymmetric posture and
contractures, complications that will often
need expensive and painful surgery to
correct. There is also a significant risk of
children developing sores, if left untreated
they can become infected and have serious
consequences.
families are facing are:
• Disputes between social services and
health professionals as to who is
responsible for providing the bed / sleep
system.
• Children falling outside of increasingly
strict criteria.
• No budgets made available for specialist
beds and sleep systems as a policy.
• Waiting lists are so long that by the time a
child is given the correct bed, the damage
has already been done to their health.
• Statutory services only providing a basic
hospital bed. This bed will not fit the
requirements of most children with
complex disabilities.
• Beds being considered an essential
household requirement by some statutory
bodies and therefore they believe it is the
families and not statutory services that
should fund this.
• Some Social Services departments saying
that a bed is not an essential piece of
equipment.
• Some children being tightly strapped into
their beds at night to control contractures
and the straps then causing the child
injury. This may sound like medieval
torture, but it is happening now across the
UK. A specialist sleep system would stop
this immediately.
• Some children whose lives are put at risk
because of an inadequate bed. We have
heard of one example where a child fell
through the bottom of an unsuitable bed
and fractured his skull and broke his teeth,
this was while he was on a waiting list to
be provided with a suitable bed.
To get equipment, the professional involved in
the child's care decides whether the
equipment is a health or social requirement.
This is assessed as either 'access' or
'pressure relieving' need.
• Access: The child has some general
mobility and the bed is therefore more of a
social need.
• Pressure: Tissue Viability Team decide that
the child has very little or no mobility and is
in need of continual support. Therefore it is
a health requirement.
If budgets are tight in that area the
professionals can apply to the Director of
Finance at the local PCT for funding.
19
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
mentgg
CAMPAIGN REPORT
“it seems ridiculous that we spend all day
putting Robert in a special seating and standard frame, just to undo all the hard work
during the night...he needs a proper bed”
If the application is accepted the PCT
releases funds to the equipment store
(integrated / county) and the bed is provided.
This bed only needs to fit the child’s most
basic needs and will usually be a standard
hospital bed.
If the family's application for funding is
refused, or the family requires something
more than the basic, the professional will look
for funding outside of statutory services,
mainly charities.
Occasionally beds are funded jointly between
social services and health, however, this is
rare.
We spoke to many professionals within the
Children’s Disability Teams around the
country (both Social Workers and OTs). When
we asked how a family would go about
getting funding for a specialist bed, most said
that “it is very difficult if not impossible to get
a bed”.
A Family’s Story
This is Robert's Story.
“Robert is three years old and has Cerebral
Palsy and Scoliosis*. Robert needs 24-hour
postural management so needed a sleeping
system to keep his spine straight during the
night. His Physio assessed his needs and
applied to Social Services. We were told
Social Services would not fund a sleeping
system as it was considered a luxury item. It
seems ridiculous that we spend all day
putting Robert in a special seating and
standard frame, just to undo all the hard work
during the night.”
Below is a breakdown of the reasons given
for denying equipment.
FUNDING
No Budget
One OT even said that she would not bother
attempting it through statutory services and
would go straight to charities.
3%
Total: 59%
POLICY
3%
Equipment rationing
9%
Does not meet the
criteria
12%
Do not provide the type
of equipment
54%
4%
Do not provide
equipment
Inter agency squabbles
10%
5%
Not considered a priority
Total: 41%
Beds / sleep systems are often the subject of squabbles between departments (Health and Social
Services). However we still see policy to disguise spending rationing playing a major part in faliure.
“
Professionals
don't bother to
apply to their
departments - they
go straight to
charities
”
Melvin, aged 4,
Scotland
“Melvin has Spinal Muscular
Atrophy. We needed a
powered wheelchair as
Melvin can't self propel. We
applied to wheelchair
services via the occupational
therapist. We had to wait
nearly two years for the
assessment from diagnosis.
We were refused this item
because the NHS funds only
allow for a basic powered
wheelchair which was not
entirely suitable for a child of
Melvin's intelligence. No
vouchers were offered and we
were told we would have to
meet the cost of non-standard
equipment ourselves.”
20
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
The
Right
Equip
Specialist Car Seats
Most families with children will require car seats in the first couple of years of their
lives. For disabled children this requirement can last much longer. Car seats for
disabled children are usually larger and sturdier than normal car seats. These seats
have increased safety measures such as stronger harnesses, and head and leg
supports. These seats will provide exceptional support to children who are either
unable to support themselves or do not have an understanding of danger.
“
The law changed
but no one
considered the
impact on
disabled children
”
Chelsea, age 10
months, Kent
“Chelsea has SMA Type 1.
This is a terminal illness. We
needed a shed to store all of
her specialist equipment,
such as a travel seat, buggy,
bath seat, moses basket etc.
We were told our local OT
service do not provide
storage for equipment. We
could barely move for
equipment in our house. We
were at a loss as to who to
ask for help.”
Some specialist car seats are mounted on
swivel bases to help transfer the child in and
out of the car. This also reduces the risks
associated with lifting and handling older
children. BDF Newlife has provided many
specialist car seats to many families. When
asked, every family told us that they had to
apply to charities because they couldn't get
funding through statutory services. The
problems that families face with car seats
have become increasingly severe since the
legislation was passed six months ago
extending car seat laws. We’ve found that
despite the law changing, provision by
statutory services hasn’t changed.
Families with a disabled child face increased
amounts of pressure in their day to day life.
For many, being able to leave the house and
see other people is a lifeline. For all, safely
taking their child to hospital appointments,
physiotherapy and school is essential. While a
car seat is legally essential for all children,
parents of children without disabilities are not
forced to pay up to £2,000 for car seat. Nor
do they have to replace this car seat every
few years until the child is 10, 11 or 12 years
old plus.
We believe the main problems families
face are:
• Budget restrictions within both health and
local authorities which mean that families
are unable to get a special needs car seat
for their disabled child.
• Some statutory services do not view a car
seat as an essential item.
• Some families are told that a car seat is an
essential piece of equipment that they
would have to provide for their child with or
without a disability and therefore is not
something statutory services should have
to fund.
Ten years ago, car seats for disabled children
were provided by Social Services. Since
Primary Care Trusts have gained more
autonomy, this provision has disappeared.
Because of the increasing gap between
demand and supply, charities are often turned
to for financial assistance.
Legally, it is the duty of the local authority to
provide practical assistance and additional
facilities designed to secure greater safety,
comfort or convenience to those people
assessed as needing them. However, the
interpretation of this seems to be very flexible
with many local authorities unaware of it. In
some areas there is a loan scheme for car
seats, this will be based in the Children’s
Information Service in local regional council
offices. As with wheelchairs, car seats appear
to be another postcode lottery. Provision was
originally from Social Services, however, it
happens so rarely now that no one seems to
be aware of this.
“we don't understand why car seats
aren't provided. We have been told
that they just don't provide them”
21
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
mentgg
A Family’s Story
Janus, aged two, Humberside.
“Janus is registered blind with very unstable
epilepsy, he has many medical and global
problems with his muscle tone.
We needed a special car seat. Janus stopped
breathing in his normal seat while we were
stuck in rush hour traffic, this new special
seat will help to keep him breathing.
To get this equipment we applied to Social
Services, local charities, and Occupational
Therapists. We had an assessment straight
away, however we didn't receive any funding.
We were told we couldn't get this equipment
due to budgets. The local charity said that it
was not their field, it is up to social services
to provide it.
Social Services then said we can't give more
than one car seat as everyone will want
another. This decision meant that we lived in
fear of Janus having a fit in the car, and due
to this I was very depressed. This upset my
other two children.
CAMPAIGN REPORT
BDF provided a grant for the car seat. If they
hadn't Janus could have stopped breathing
again during a fit which could have resulted in
Janus passing away.
The grants scheme gave us freedom to travel
with ease. It has made such a big difference
to our lives. Why can't disabled children have
equipment that gives them a little bit of a
normal existence?”
A Professional's Comment:
“We don't understand why car seats aren't
provided. We have been told that we just don't
provide them. I thought that this is particularly
strange because the O.T. called the seat
dangerous and the doctor has urged them to
consider funding…”
In the three year period that BDF Newlife
have been providing Child and Family Grants,
94 car seats have been given. With each of
these grants we have been given the reason
by a professional that the family has had to
apply for charitable funding.
Tom aged 4, The
Midlands
BDF Newlife
FUNDING
Josh, aged 6, Suffolk
2%
4%
Total: 72%
20%
POLICY
Does not meet the
criteria
Do not provide
equipment
2%
Inter agency squabbles
No reason
Total: 28%
When the law changed in September 2006, no-one had planned to provide for disabled
children. Perhaps this is why we see a clearer picture here. It is clear that finances are
the real reasons and the rationing policies developed for the other equipment have yet
to be developed.
72%
“Josh has Cerebral Palsy and
needed an electric standing
frame. We spoke to Josh's
Physio who contacted BDF
Newlife, Josh would not have
had the equipment provided
anywhere else. Without this
stand the muscles in his legs
and posture would
deteriorate. If we didn't get
this equipment Josh wouldn't
be able to stand and his
posture would deteriorate.”
22
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
“
I would like to tell
decision-makers
that disabled
people are treated
like second
class citizens
”
“
How can a
chair not be a
neccessity for a
paralysed child?
”
Declan, age 3, Leeds
“Declan has Spina Bifida and
Hydrocephalus and needs a
lot of equipment. The only
item we have got for my son
from the NHS was the
manual chair and even then
we had to wait 3 months for
the suitable harness to be put
on. He has an electric chair
which was funded through
BDF Newlife. He also has a
trike which I had to fund. He
still needs a car seat and a
seating system, I'll have to
find the money for these from
somewhere.”
The
Right
Equip
Specialist Seating
Many children with disabilities require specialist seating for different reasons. These
seats may have headrests, harnesses or cushioning. Some children need it for postural
management, to relieve pain/pressure for feeding and to ensure that their health does
not deteriorate. Others need it to use at school or interact with their families.
families face are:
• Extensive waiting lists.
• Budget restrictions.
• Children being entitled to only one piece of
equipment. If a child requires a seat at
school as well as at home, the family must
often chose which one they are going to
fund.
• Statutory services only providing one type
of seat, if this does not fit the child’s needs
then the family is required to fund an
alternative.
• Debates between departments as to who
should fund the seat, i.e. is it a piece of
school equipment or is it a therapeutic aid?
• Seating equipment not being seen as a
necessity.
• Families being told that pre-school children
with disabilities do not require specialist
seating. The alternative is lying the child
down on floors and beds, however this can
cause problems such as sores.
Provision of specialist seating appears to be
split across many statutory services remits. In
some areas a specialist seating clinic within
Wheelchair Services is responsible for
meeting children’s seating requirements. If a
child with disabilities is statemented for
Special Educational Needs then it may be that
the school is required to purchase the seating
equipment. Alternatively the seating may
come from Social Services. A typical example
of the need for seating was of a nine year-old
boy who had never sat at the table and eaten
a meal with his family – Statutory Services
refused the seating system he needed.
A Family’s Story
This is Hope's story.
Hope is 13 years-old and has multiple
disabilities.
This story is told by her mum. "Hope has
gastric abnormalities, is registered blind,
epileptic and has quadriplegic Cerebral Palsy.
Hope likes to do everything her friends do but
she can't. She cries a lot about this, it breaks
my heart.
Over the years we have needed quite a lot of
equipment for Hope. My husband is in the
armed forces so I have done most of it by
myself. A few years ago we needed to extend
our house so that we could get all of Hope's
equipment in. We applied for a Disabled
Facilities Grant, we put some money to it but
when we asked how long it would take they
said, “how long is a piece of string?”. They
said that if we lived in a council house this
would be easier, but we don't. We are now
having to mortgage ourselves above our
heads to do this.
We have also had problems getting respite
care for Hope. We adopted her when she was
a baby and I wouldn't change that for the
world, but it's a struggle. We have lots of
friends and family but we still need some
help. All we are told is “funding, funding,
funding”, I feel like carers mean nothing in our
society.
Last year we applied to BDF Newlife for a
chair for Hope. Social Services bought one
for her years ago but she has outgrown it.
When we went to Social Services for another
they said they don't provide these any more
as they are not a necessity. I think it is. They
said that funding is tight and they have to
make cuts, it's just wrong.
23
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
mentgg
“statutory services only provide one
type of seat, if this does not fit the
child's needs then the family is
forced to fund an alternative.”
Without a comfy chair for the lounge Hope
spends all day strapped into a wheelchair and
all night lying in her bed. It got so bad that her
legs are permanently bent from sitting in one
position all day.
I would like to tell decision-makers that
disabled people are treated like second class
citizens. These children didn't ask to be born
this way, they haven't taken drugs or abused
their bodies, I think that if they need
something, they should have it."
CAMPAIGN REPORT
specialist seating systems have been given.
With each of these grants we have been
given the reason by a professional that the
family has had to apply for charitable funding.
Caniel aged 11,
Midlands
BDF Newlife
FUNDING
No Budget
Total: 66%
3%
2%
3%
POLICY
6%
Equipment rationing
Does not meet the
criteria
13%
51%
2%
Do not provide
equipment
Inter agency squables
5%
Not considered a priority
15%
Administrative error
No Reason
Total: 34%
Again we see inter-department squabbles about funding. Proper seating is essential for
comfort, pain relief and therapeutically. But while people see the role of a wheelchair,
they don't always understand the important role of seating in a child’s life and
healthcare. We see here that lack of funding is the biggest reason, but it is likely that
the rationing policies are less developed for this equipment and we have seen big
increases in applications to the charity as statutory services introduce new rationing
policies.
A mother from Belfast
“My son has Spina Bifida and
Hydrocephalus. I think the
general public are unaware of
the financial pressures of
bringing up a disabled child
and more funding should be
available so that their quality
of life can be improved.
Charities such as BDF Newlife
are a wonderful thing and I'm
sure they benefit so many
lives, but it can't be left to
charities alone, more
governmental funding should
be allocated.”
24
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
The
Right
Equip
Walkers and
Standing Frames
Providing a suitable walker for a child with mobility problems can change their lives.
A walker can give a child independent mobility, good postural support, encourage
tone, balance and co-ordination and prevent deformities and contractures.
families face are:
Tyler, aged 4,
Tamworth
BDF Newlife
• Families being told that they are only
entitled to one piece of equipment for their
child. This means that the child’s actual
needs are being ignored to fit with policy.
• Children being assessed for a walker but are
then told by statutory services that they do
not have the budget to purchase it.
• Children being assessed and then placed on
lengthy waiting lists, by the time that the
equipment arrives it is no longer suitable for
them.
Anthony, aged 7,
Yorkshire
“Anthony doesn't have a
diagnosis for his condition.
He is a wheelchair user and
fed through a gastrostomy.
Despite this he is a happy
little boy. My son needed a
special car seat. We were told
that nobody will fund car
seats and that it is totally up
to parents to fund them. This
decision meant that we had
to make journeys as short as
possible and often couldn't
go out. I feel it is vital that
children have this piece of
equipment, after all it is law
for everyone to be strapped
into a car.”
• Statutory services only providing one type of
walker. If this walker does not fit the child’s
requirement, the family must find the money
to buy a different one.
• Statutory services not providing any type of
walker for children with disabilities.
Walking equipment is usually considered
mobility equipment and should therefore be
provided by PCT funded Physiotherapists.
However, other statutory agencies such as
LEAs may contribute if the child is using the
walker or standing frame at school. There are
many types of walkers that are needed for
children with different mobility problems. The
prices of walkers can vary from £250 to more
than £2,000.
A Family’s Story
This is Adolfo’s story.
Adolfo is six years old and has Cerebral
Palsy. This story is told by his mum.
"Adolfo has Cerebral Palsy and Epilepsy and
wears glasses for Astigmatism as well as
being long sighted. Adolfo’s global
development is delayed therefore he has
learning difficulties and mobility is restricted.
Over the years we have required many items
to help Adolfo around the home, in particular
a walker. We spoke to Physiotherapists four
years ago and we were provided with a Kwalker, but it was of no use to Adolfo. This
was the only walker that we were offered but
it was taken back when it was noticed that it
was not the right walker for him. We waited
two years for a Social Services assessment.
We were told that Social Services do not
provide walkers.
This decision meant that we had to search for
a walker for ourselves to no avail. Our
Physiotherapist helped also and we met with
representatives at schools to see if we could
find a suitable walker. We thought however
that we would never find a suitable one, but
eventually we did.
25
mentgg
“we waited two years for a
Social Services assessment”
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
“we would like to ask decision-makers
why does it have to be a fight to get
anything provided for our children?”
If BDF Newlife had been unable to approve
the grant we would have had to save the
money but it would have taken a long time.
We already felt like we had wasted time
getting help in finding the right walker. Time is
crucial when you are looking for assistance
for your child and we are all aware that the
earlier our children are helped then the better
the chance of them improving.
We would like to ask decision-makers why
does it have to be a fight to get anything
provided for our children? Surely the earlier
that equipment is provided, the better the
chance of our children’s lives improving.
When you eventually stumble across
someone who is willing to refer you, why
does it take over two years? Why are you
then assessed by the adult section of Social
Services that don’t have a clue about
children’s needs and the equipment they
need?"
BDF Newlife’s very first grant was to a boy
who was developing a spinal curvature
through sitting all day. He was told it would
be a nine month wait during which he would
get worse and the pain would increase. We
supplied the frame in a matter of days. A
child’s health and welfare is important.
walking or standing frames. With each of
these grants we have been given the reason
by a professional that the family has had to
apply for charitable funding.
Siobhan, aged 10,
South East Englaand
11%
No budget
Total: 67%
7%
48%
POLICY
Equipment rationing
Do not provide
equipment
No reason
19%
BDF Newlife
FUNDING
15%
Paul aged 15,
Cheshire
Total: 33%
Here we see less rationing policies in place and this reveals the lack of financial
planning.
“Siobhan had bilateral eye
cancer, her left eye was
removed and fitted with an
artificial eye and the
remaining eye has 10%
vision. She needed a CCTV at
home to read and do
homework. We had to apply
to BDF Newlife for this vital
equipment. Without the CCTV
Siobhan's life would have
continued to be dull. Before
the CCTV Siobhan was
heartbroken not to be able to
do the things ordinary
children enjoy such as
reading a book or looking at
magazines for girls.”
26
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Reasons for
Denying Provision
Below is a guide to the pie charts on the preceding pages. Please use this
reference guide to understand fully the implications of the graphics.
Funding
Inter-agency squabble:
No funding available:
This means that statutory services either do
not understand their obligations and
responsibilties or are so under funded that
they have to constantly reduce their remit so
they provide fewer services and types of
equipment. This leads to families being
passed between agencies while they
squabble about who is responsible. Most
families cannot wait the months that it often
takes to establish responsibility, if
responsibility is ever established. They often
have a policy to dispute responsibilty to fund
certain equipment in an aim to get another
statutory service to pay out.
For many children needing essential basic
equipment, statutory services in their area
have either provided too small a budget to
provide this equipment or did not provide a
budget at all.
No budget:
Dalton, aged 4,
Northumberland
“Dalton has Infantile
Idiopathic Progressive
Scoliosis and has been in a
full body cast since he was
one and a half. Without it
Dalton would not make his
10th birthday. We needed a
special mattress to help
Dalton sleep better, but were
told that the NHS had no
money for it. This meant that
it was usual for me to get to
bed at approx 3am, check
Dalton during the night to
turn him so his circulation
was not cut off for too long,
then get up when he woke up
and prepare to go to full-time
work. I'd then get home from
work and start Dalton's care
again. You adapt to living on
little sleep, one week I
managed on eight hours
sleep for the week while still
working full-time.”
Despite the clear need for a piece of
equipment, for many children, statutory
services in their area did not provide a budget
for this equipment at the beginning of the
financial year, therefore the child is forced to
go without or the family attempt to self-fund.
Doesn’t meet criteria:
Policies
Equipment rationing:
For some children with disabilities, they are
entitled to only one piece of equipment. Most
children who use for example a wheelchair or
specialist buggy will also need a standing or
walking frame. We know that most children
with disabilities will need several pieces of
equipment. This practice prevents many
children with disabilities from reaching their
full potential.
Do not provide the specification of
equipment:
While some statutory services will provide a
certain piece of equipment to a child with
disabilities, for many children the equipment
that they are offered is very basic. Families
are then forced to look for alternate funding
from other sources. To provide improved
specification.
This means that the provision of many pieces
of equipment is based on strict, often
unreachable criteria, and not on a child’s
actual need. Such criteria is clearly due to
ration out low budgets not to reflect the
needs of the child.
Not considered a priority:
Despite a child being clinically assessed by a
trained professional employed by statutory
services, statutory services are disregarding
their assessment and saying it is not a priority
to fund this. The professionals assessment
must stand, not a funding based policy.
27
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Administrative error:
Do not provide the type of equipment:
There are children in the UK who do not have
the equipment that they so desperately need
because the administrative department with
the statutory agency made an error. This is
unfortunately quite common. Some families
have been told that they are on a six month
waiting list, only to find six months later that
there is no record of their child’s application.
Others are told that someone forgot to order a
part for the equipment and the family have to
wait until the next financial year for the missing
piece to arrive. These cases are not rare.
This means that for some children, statutory
services will not even look at funding the
equipment that they need. There is just a
blanket refusal on the basis of type. This is a
particular problem for younger children
needing specialist mobility equipment.
Statutory services often take the view that
any child would need a buggy or a bed so
parents of children with disabilities are told to
cover this cost themselves. However, this
policy fails to recognise that the higher cost
of specialist equipment. It is often ten times
higher than standard equipment.
No excuse:
For some children statutory services did not
feel compelled to provide a reason for refusing
to fund their equipment. The answer was
simply ‘no.’
This gives families and professionals
information to guide or inform them for the
future. Surely a reason is not too much to ask,
unless it is being used to cover up failings. We
have heard of applications being automatically
denied when funds run out and of departments
that have had no budget for two years. Does
'No' hide these systematic failings?
Morgan, aged 4,
Cheshire
“Morgan has an Autistic
Spectrum Disorder and mild
Dyspraxia and conductive
hearing loss. He has
behavioural problems, no
awareness of danger and
tires when walking. He
required a buggy with lap
restraint.
The Occupational Therapy
department is so busy that
they may not even assess
children with ASD. We were
refused by statutory services
because of budget problems
and assessment restrictions.
Without BDF Newlife we
would have been forced to
fundraise alone or continue to
campaign. We are now able
to go out as a family and
longer holidays and trips are
now possible.”
28
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
A Parent and Child’s
Point of View
“
He has to
constantly adjust
his position to try to
get comfortable
”
Tyler, aged 4,
The Midlands
“Tyler has conditions which
affect his fine motor skills
and movement. He needed a
buggy but we were told there
could be a wait of up to 12
months. We were not refused
the item but told there could
be a long wait. It made trips
or days out more or less
impossible as we never knew
when Tyler would refuse to
walk. At four stone he is far
too heavy to carry any
distance. The buggy helped
us have a better social life as
we can take Tyler out more
easily.”
Mother of two Donna Giles needed a seating system for her son Nathan, who has
Cerebral Palsy and is unable to sit unaided. The system would allow him to sit with his
family for a meal and make it easier for his mum to transport him from room to room.
Their local Occupational Therapy department
had no available budget until after April 2007
and the family was told “there will remain
significant delay with regard to funding for
the foreseeable future.”
Donna writes: “From a parent's point of
view, accessing any equipment for a disabled
child always appears to take an enormous
amount of time and effort.
While the professionals involved with your
child can be very helpful, and know exactly
what your child needs, the extremely 'ad hoc'
way in which funding is allocated, more often
than not leads to the frustration of a lengthy
wait, especially if you are trying to order
towards the end of the financial year. I have
been told in December that Equipment
Funding Panels in several departments will
not be sitting until April, the start of the new
financial year.
My daughter Cerys becomes frustrated when
she can't feed herself, because her chair is
so unsupportive. If she is tired, and even
more floppy, I have had concerns about her
choking. The Physiotherapist has suggested
a chair on wheels, as I have to lift both
children; this would mean that there would
be less risk of me injuring myself, which
would obviously impact on the statutory
services I would have to receive.
There are very good clinical and lifeenhancing reasons why professionals
suggest certain pieces of equipment, and to
deny children access to that equipment will
hold back their potential and impact on their
way of life, and the contribution they can
make to society.
Previously, we have waited nine months for a
chair for my son.
When a child is diagnosed as being disabled,
would it not be sensible for an amount of
money to be allocated, knowing they will
need certain equipment, so that it is there
when it is needed?
Lately, both my son and daughter have
required new chairs. Our Physiotherapist
approached her manager, who was not
hopeful of funding, so she then approached
Social Services Occupational Therapy, who
said there would be a delay of at least three
months.
Looking after disabled children requires
organisation, and more expense than having
an able-bodied child anyway, without having
to afford equipment that Funding Managers
may not view as urgent or essential, but
that the families waiting for them very
definitely do.”
Meanwhile, my son nearly fell out of one
chair, and is so tightly squeezed into another;
he can't get comfortable, which impacts on
his concentration when trying to do his
homework. When eating, he has to
constantly adjust his position to try to get
comfortable.
29
“my chair at home is too small - when I
am trying to do my homework or eat at
the table I am uncomfortable and don't
feel safe so I can't concentrate”
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Mathew aged 14,
Kent
BDF Newlife
Louise, aged 5,
South West England
Her son Nathan Giles writes:
“Not being able to have the equipment I need
is a problem, because I can't work properly if
I am not comfortable in my chair.
I have recently had a problem because my
chair at home is too small - when I am trying
to do my homework or eat at the table I am
uncomfortable and don't feel safe so I can't
concentrate.
I am going to be doing my Year 6 SATs soon,
and I need to be able to practice for them,
and concentrate on what I am doing. They
are important to me and I want to do well.
Waiting for new equipment is like being
starved of something, especially when you
are not sure if you will ever have it.
I would like to know that all children can have
the equipment they need, when they need it.”
“Louise has Sanfillippo
Syndrome. She needed a
special bed so we applied to
the Occupational Therapist.
We waited 18 months for an
assessment. We were refused
this equipment because of
funding, funding, funding.
The whole process is about
money. We've got used to
being refused help.
Everybody thinks if you are
disabled or your kids are
disabled, you've won the
lottery.”
30
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Early Intervention
“
Professionals
involved in Ekram's
care believe that if
he had received the
equipment five
years ago, his
behaviour would
have been modified
enough to stay in
the family home.
”
"The pawnbroker untangles
Santa Claus, even though
two poisons comfortably
sacrificed umpteen progressive botulisms. Klingons
gossips. Umpteen obese
chrysanthemums very drunkenly tickled two speedy
fountains. Umpteen obese
dogs fights the slightly progressive aardvarks.
Quark perused five partly
angst-ridden dogs. Umpteen
obese dogs fights the slightly progressive aardvarks.
angst-ridden dogs.”
Professor Michael A Patton
Medical Director
BDF Newlife believes that when it comes to providing equipment, early intervention
is essential. We often hear from families that are denied equipment costing £1,000,
where their child then goes on to develop physical problems that often costs the
NHS £10,000 plus to manage / treat. This mis-management creates an unnecessary financial burden on the government and distress and pain to the child.
CASE STUDY ONE
CASE STUDY TWO
Ekram: aged 18 years old
Janus: aged two-years-old
Condition: Severe learning and behavioural
difficulties.
Condition: Visual and hearing impairment,
unstable epilepsy, global development delay,
low muscle tone.
Equipment required: SafeSpace
Cost: £2,944.
Equipment required: Special Needs Car
Seat
TIMELINE
Cost: £649.19
Local Social Services “have been aware for
some years about injuries suffered by the
younger children” because of Ekram's
uncontrollable behaviour.
Family told by professionals involved in
Janus’ care that “this equipment is not
statutory or locally provided and is therefore
subject to independent / charitable funding.”
2001 - Family applied for SafeSpace - Ekram
aged 13 years old.
TIMELINE
2003 - Mother suffers nervous breakdown.
Both parents stop working. Family income
now solely through benefit.
2005 - Father goes to doctors about chest
pain, doctor suspects Coronary Heart
Disease. Angiogram shows no heart disease.
Father diagnosed with stress due to home
circumstances.
2006 - BDF provides SafeSpace after senior
management at Social Services are approached
again for the equipment. However Children's
Services budget overspent. Ekram now 17years-old.
Two weeks after receiving the SafeSpace,
Ekram has destroyed it. He is now moved into
residential care. Professionals involved in
Ekram's care believe that if he had received it
5 years ago, his behaviour would have been
modified enough to stay in the family home.
Cost to statutory services:
• Injuries to siblings
• Mother's nervous breakdown
• Benefits to sustain a 6 member family
• Dad’s suspected Heart Disease plus
extensive tests and treatment.
• Ekram requiring 24/7 residential one on
one care (approximated by professionals at
£50,000+ a year)
November 2006 - Janus has a seizure in his
standard car seat and chokes. Mum has
extreme difficulty in removing him from
harness. Janus stops breathing and Mum is
forced to resuscitate at the side of the road.
An ambulance is called. Janus is admitted to
hospital for the weekend due to the incident.
• 2 days / 3 nights of hospital stay for a
severely disabled 2 year old child
• Ambulance service attending to Janus
31
“Michael has used up his ‘one peice of
equipment per child’ quota”
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
“Michael is crying in pain”
CASE STUDY THREE
CASE STUDY FOUR
Michael: aged nine-years-old
Nathan: aged 13 years old
Condition: Cerebral Palsy affecting 4 limbs,
partially sighted, epileptic, non-verbal.
Condition: Pelizaeus-Merzbacher Disease, a
condition that is progressive and life-limiting.
Equipment: Specialist Chair.
Equipment: Specialist bed.
Cost: £1441.00
Cost: £2,016.30
Family told by their OT that as they had
previously received seating equipment,
although it was inappropriate, the family had
used its equipment quota.
Family told by their Social Worker “there is no
statutory funding for this”. When BDF Newlife
contacted the relevant departments in March
to investigate, we were told that the PCT isn’t
refusing the application as there is a clear
need, however there is no available cash to
buy the bed. We were told “we’re so
financially stretched it’s unbelievable, in fact
we’ve been under a financial crunch since
December”. When asked if it would improve
in the new financial year we were told
“probably not, it is an election year”.
TIMELINE
2004 - Michael has surgery on both hips.
Family apply to Occupational Therapy for
Chair. This is refused as Michael had used up
his one piece of seating equipment per child
quota. Support worker notes that Michael’s
suffering since surgery, one hip now seems
considerably worse than the other and
Michael is crying in pain.
2005 - Parents apply to BDF Newlife for
chair, this is funded. Michael has been forced
to sit on a beanbag since his hip surgery and
has developed curvature of the spine.
2006 - Michael is now being assessed for
corrective back surgery.
• Corrective back surgery for curvature of
the spine
• Pain management costs
• Therapy required due to curvature of spine
TIMELINE
February 2006 - Application made to Social
Services for a specialist bed.
July 2006 - Nathan falls out of his
inappropriate bed, ripping his feeding peg
from his abdomen. Nathan is hospitalised for
two weeks including surgery to replace the
peg. Nathan's Social Worker and Consultant
write to the PCT asking for the bed as a
priority. The PCT did not reply.
February 2007 - Application received by
BDF Newlife for a specialist bed. The bed
was funded. To date there is still no response
from the PCT.
• 15 day / 14 night hospital stay.
• Surgery to replace feeding peg.
The pawnbroker untangles
The PCT isn't
refusing
sacrificed
umpteenthe
progressive botulisms. Klingons
application as it is
clear there is
a drunkreal
chrysanthemums
very
enly tickled two speedy
need, however
there
isthe
noslightly
cashproto
dogs
fights
gressive aardvarks. Quark
buy the bed
perused five partly angst-ridden dogs."The pawnbroker
untangles Santa Claus, even
though two poisons comfortably sacrificed umpteen progressive botulisms. Klingons
chrysanthemums very drunkSocial
enlyNathan's
tickled two speedy
fountains.
Umpteen
obese
Worker and
dogs fights the slightly proConsultant
write
gressive
aardvarks.
Quarkto
perused
five partly
angst-ridthe PCT
asking
for
den dogs.”
“
”
“
the bed as a
priority. The PCT
did not reply.
Medical Director
”
32
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
What the Families Say
When we began our campaign in April 2006 we asked families to tell us their
stories. The response was overwhelming with more than 250 people telling us of
their anger, disappointment and frustration with the system. Families wanted to tell
us that statutory services are “not listening” and wanted to put over to policy
makers the difficulties that they face.
“
Why should we
feel our child is
being punished for
having a disability
”
sacrificed umpteen progresYou wait for
sive botulisms. Klingons
months
to be
told
gossips.
Umpteen
obese
chrysanthemums very drunksomething you
know
but the
fountains.
Umpteen
obese
dogs fights the slightly prosolution is not
gressive aardvarks.
forthcoming
and
Quark
perused five partly
you are quite
obese dogs fights the slightliterally
ly progressive
aardvarks.
shrugged off.
“
”
Medical Director
Their full stories are available on our website.
We invited all of these families to complete
the following sentence; “I would like to tell
the decision makers”, these are some of the
responses that we received.
Leighton
Aged four, Northamptonshire
“I would like to tell the decision makers that
we think that the way they treat families with
disabled children is disgusting. They made
us wait months on end just for an
assessment and then even longer for
anything to happen from it. While we wait our
child has to suffer with no support in his
buggy, feeding chair, car seat etc.
We feel very upset with them as they tried to
make us have second best just because it
covers some of Leighton's basic needs, the
decision shouldn't be made regarding basic
needs it should be made to cover 100% of
his needs.
Why should we feel as though our child is
being punished for having a disability? We
have to fight for everything and yet it just
seems like we are banging our heads against
a brick wall. As parents our health suffers as
well from the heavy lifting and due to bending
down a lot which comes from looking after
and caring for our children (we would do
anything for them). Things need to change
for the better.”
Louie
Aged ten, Northamptonshire
“I would like to tell decision makers that if
you are lucky enough to get the needs of
your child recognised in a reasonable amount
of time, which in itself is rare, you are more
than often told “yes your child needs that
item or service but sorry there's no money.”
You wait for months to be told something you
know but the solution is not forthcoming and
you are quite literally shrugged off. Again we
are left to search the internet and rely on the
good of others in order to obtain the
necessities for your child.”
Jackson
Aged 13, London
“We would like to tell decision makers that
life is hard for children with disabilities and
their families. We have to fight to get the
most basic things; an appropriate education,
Physiotherapy, O.T. It seems that everything
is under funded and disabled people are
easily forgotten. Parents of disabled children
feel isolated from a society which assumes
that proper provision is made for them and
their children. It is hard for mothers of
disabled children to work, however, when
they do, they are penalised and expected to
pay for all but the most basic equipment.”
Lauren
Aged five, South Yorkshire
“I would like to say to decision makers, swap
lives with our family for six months to
experience the difficulties and heartache
every day, to see the most special part of
your life taken over with the pressure of
fighting for basic
equipment.
I would also like
to tell them that
our child
deserves the best
start in life just
like anyone else;
Lauren did not
ask to be
disabled so why
should she be
penalised? These
people need to
realise that this
can happen to
33
“we have to fight to get
the most basic things”
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
“it seems that everything is under-funded
and disabled people are easily forgotten”
anyone, ordinary people like us, like them.
We are not expecting miracles but just to
stop putting obstacles in our way of trying to
live a life as a family like I am sure they do.”
Ashleigh
Aged eight, East Lothian
“Ashleigh has developmental delay, allergic
enteropathy, seizure disorder, visual
impairment, macrocephaly, adrenache and
dietary restrictions.
Ashleigh is dependent on me to meet all care
needs. Ashleigh's disabilities mean that she
requires support and supervision throughout
her waking hours.
fundraising, but I'm sure it would have taken
a long time and we just can't afford to buy it.
Because of childminding problems I can only
work part-time. Without this equipment it
would mean no respite through my parents.
Also with no overnight stays at hospital, I
would have to care for Ashleigh at home.
I would like to tell decision makers that they
should think more about the impact that
equipment can have on a child's life, instead
of how much it costs. I think that they don't
think about how difficult it can be without
having to ask or beg for things that are really
needed.”
Ashleigh has partial seizures / night terrors.
During these episodes Ashleigh jumps about
in her bed. Ashleigh has no sense of danger
and would jump out or fall out throughout the
night. The whole family will benefit from a
Safespace voyager. It would mean we could
plan holidays, be able to have respite and
mean Ashleigh can go to hospital overnight.
To get this equipment we asked our OT as
the social work department couldn't provide
a bed for Ashleigh to sleep in all the time. We
also spoke to the hospital about overnight
stays, what happens when Ashleigh needs to
be admitted? We were told that she would
sleep on a mattress on the floor which is not
safe at all for Ashleigh.
We were refused this item basically because
Ashleigh's needs are not the same as some
other children and equipment that Ashleigh
needs is not usually used for other children.
People often don't understand the dangers.
The decision by statutory services to not
fund this equipment meant we had to
dismantle Ashleigh's cot bed and take it on
holiday, but Ashleigh's far too big for this
now because of her rapid growth.
BDF Newlife provided a grant for the
equipment. If they hadn't I would have tried
“
I would like to tell
decision makers
that they should
think more about
the impact that
equipment can
have on a child's
life, instead of how
much it costs.
”
chrysanthemums very drunkenlyWe
tickled
two speedy
should
not
have
dogs
fights to
the beg
slightlyfor
progressiveeverything
aardvarks. Quark
dogs fights the slightly progressive aardvarks. Quark
perused five partly angst-ridden dogs.”
“
Alice
Aged six, Derbyshire
“I would like to tell decision makers that just
because a child is disabled shouldn't mean
that they have to go without the things that
other people take for granted. All equipment
should be subsidised to bring costs in line
with items for a non-disabled child. The
difference in costs are too great, we should
not have to beg for everything. E.g. Car seat
for Alice £793.41, normal car seat £50.00.
Bed for Alice £4010.00, normal bed £200.00.
Buggy for Alice £1600.00, normal buggy,
£200.00. The list is endless.”
”
Medical Director
34
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Who Meets the Need
When the State Fails?
Using our figures and data collected from other grant giving charities,
we have built up a picture of ‘unmet need’.
In the same period that PCTs and Local
Authorities spent £16 million on equipment
for children with disabilities, UK charities
spent over £4 million. This means that
charities provided a 25% equivalent of the
statutory spending.
Jade, aged 12,
Staffordshire
BDF Newlife
Medical Director
For the first time we have surveyed the main
equipment grant making charities to find out
how they are helping to plug the gap in
Statutory Services spending.
In speaking confidentially to professionals we
have been told that in many areas it is now
stated in the department’s policy to apply to
charities for equipment before using the
departments budget.
BDF Newlife receives most of its applications
for equipment grants from professionals,
rather than families, as they desperately try to
help the child when their departments fail.
When statutory services fail to provide a child
basic essential equipment, the family must
make a decision. They have three difficult
choices, they can either:
1. Approach a charity for funding
As a grant-giving charity we have become
increasingly aware of the amount of families
being forced to approach charities for funding
for essential equipment. BDF Newlife’s Child
and Family Grant Scheme has now been
running for three years. In the first year we
spent £37,000. In the second year we spent
£500,000. Last year we spent over £750,000.
These grants are not awarded for a ‘Rolls
Royce’ specification. These grants are mainly
made for essential basic equipment such as
wheelchairs, car seats, beds and standing
frames.
When we surveyed the charities we found
that many have to have a waiting list as
applications are now outstripping their
funding resources.
2. Self-fund
There are many families in the UK who, when
they are refused essential equipment by
statutory services, try to self fund the item.
We are already aware that families with a
disabled child are under a financial burden
and can only buy equipment on high interest
credit cards.
As equipment can often cost in excess of the
£2,000, this means that by the time the family
finish paying for the equipment, the item is
usually too small and is unusable for the child.
We hear constantly from families who are now
suffering high levels of debt because of self
funding equipment - who take on financial
responsibilities that they can not meet
because they can not face the prospect of
their child suffering. We have heard of
wheelchairs being bought on credit cards
which at minimum payments will take a family
ten years to pay off.
These families often call us in crisis, when
their homes are about to be repossessed. By
this stage, families have no faith left in
statutory service providers.
3. Go without
The final option for a family is for their child to
go without. Unfortunately there is no record of
how many children in the UK have gone
without essential equipment. These children
and there families suffer in silence for years.
We believe that BDF Newlife is the first charity
to assess unmet need. We are constantly told
by PCTs and Local Authorities that while they
spend very little on equipment for children
with disabilities, there are no children in their
area that have been assessed as requiring
equipment and have gone without. We know
that this is not true. We have spent almost £1
million this year on this equipment so we can
prove they are wrong.
35
“in many areas it is now stated in the
department’s policy to apply to charities for
equipment before using the department’s budget”
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
What this means
By assessing unmet need we hope to achieve
the following;
• Highlighting to the Government that there
are children in the UK who are not being
funded by statutory services, despite there
being an assessment showing a clinical
need., ie an unmet need.
Elizabeth aged 17,
Oxon
• Highlighting to the Government exactly
how much they are under funding the
services.
BDF Newlife
• Highlighting the role of charities in trying to
plug the statutory services funding gap.
See the chart below.
Charity Name
Spend for 2005-06
Caudwell Charitable Trust
567,000.00
Association for Spina Bifida & Hydrocephalus
3,000.00
Roald Dahl Foundation
7,200.00
Children Today Charitable Trust
Lifeline 4 kids
73,000.00
174,425.00
National Blind Children's Society
Anonymous Charity
28,563.00
1,100,000.00
ACT Foundation
146,000.00
The Jennifer Trust for Spinal Muscular Atrophy
Action for Kids
8,200.00
464,700.00
Get Kids Going
743,750.00
React
357,152.00
Joseph Patrick Trust (Muscular Dystrophy)
BDF Newlife
94,125.22
perused
five partly are
angst-ridFamilies
den dogs."The pawnbroker
buyingSanta
wheelchairs
untangles
Claus, even
though
two poisons
comforton credit
cards
ably sacrificed umpteen prodesperate
toKlingons
help
gressive
botulisms.
gossips.their
Umpteen
obese
child
“
”
507,001.47
Total : £4,274,116.69
Based on the information provided by these charities surveyed in March 2007.
Medical Director
36
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
What does the law say?
So far in this report we have examined and read about:
“
In speaking to
statutory bodies
there appears to be
a real lack of
understanding
about the
responsibilities
they have under
the law.
”
• The rapid crumbling of the statutory system for providing equipment. Can
this go on?
• The shambolic system of provision and the postcode lottery existing
throughout most of the UK. Is this reasonable?
• The frustrations of professionals told to apply to charities on behalf of a
child/family rather than depend on their department’s funds and we have been
told of the inter-departmental squabbling that surrounds who funds what.
Is this acceptable?
• The impact that this failure to assess and provide has on the safety, health,
welfare and pain of children and their families.
• The scandal of low spending by the majority of PCTs and Local Authorities.
With some even spending nothing in a whole year, while others were acting
and investing in our children. Why such disparity?
• The stated and detailed reasons why these statutory services have
declined provision to children and the myriad of ways they present those
reasons, sometimes stating there is no money or developing policies to ration
out provision, often regardless of assessments of real need.
• The unmet need and how families are paying on credit cards for essential
equipment they have been refused and how some children are forced to go
without with terrible consequences. We have also seen how the Third Sector
(charities) is now substantially filling the gap left by these failing statutory
services.
But what does the law say? Most people
reading this report will be asking themselves
how can this be happening? Surely children's
rights and welfare are protected in law.
The UK has perhaps the most developed
welfare and legal system anywhere in the
world so in looking at who can act in the best
interests of children for this type of need, we
have looked to the law to try to establish if
these failings are acceptable. Of course
Scotland, Wales and indeed Northern Ireland
may have differing legal frameworks but
many of the guiding principles and some of
the European laws may apply.
In speaking to statutory bodies there appears
to be a real lack of understanding about the
responsibilities they have under the law.
Families are confused, professionals wonder
what the position is in respect of provision.
But no one seems to be clear if protection
under the law exists.
For these reasons we approached leading
Solicitors Leigh Day and Co. of London to
advise us on how to establish legal guidance
to clear up the wide spread and confused
state of affairs. Their established experience
in the field of human rights, clinical
negligence and personal injury initially gave
us hope that protection did exist in law.
However to be clear what the detail and
weight of this protection was, through Leigh
Day and Co. we appointed leading barrister
Eleanor Gray to research the issues we
raised and provide a written opinion of the
matter.
We will be publishing her final opinion, ‘hot
off the press’ alongside this report in April 07.
The questions we have asked her are driven
by the experiences of real families and
children. We essentially asked questions
around ‘is it lawful or defensible that
assessments and provision is lengthy and
often delayed and equipment often refused
on the basis of resource availability?’ We
recognised that every case is different, but
because many of the situations we see are
common ones, we felt it was important to
establish practical advice. In particular we
asked her about:
37
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
• Timely assessments, how long is
reasonable and what happens to children
if their need is urgent but the waiting list for
an assessment is many weeks or months
long. It is not uncommon to hear of 26 to
37 weeks (two years in one case) waiting
lists just to get an OT or Physiotherapist to
attend a rapidly growing or seriously
deteriorating child to make an assessment
which may or may not result in equipment
than being provided. Where disabled
adults are concerned the authorities are
expected to draw up eligibility criteria’s so
that the assessment can establish needs
such as critical, substantial, moderate or
low. However it is rare to find the same
process applied to children's provision,
despite their special circumstances. Reassessments for equipment can be even
longer – a real problem in fast growing
children. Is this acceptable?
• The statutory responsibilities of Local
Authorities and Primary Care Trusts – what
are their legal responsibilities?
• The responsibilities of the statutory bodies
to follow national guidance in local areas
– we see locally set policies affecting many
of the reasons for equipment being denied,
often based on resource shortages, skills
or funds. But are these shortages the
‘exceptional circumstances’ which would
cause one of these services to work
outside National Guidance?
• The weight of the assessments in driving
provision - so if a doctor or other
professional makes an assessment of need
can the statutory authorities disregard this
when it comes to providing equipment?
• Is it acceptable to state, despite the needs
of the individual’s circumstances or
condition, that statutory authorities make
‘blanket’ policies that exclude certain
specifications or types of equipment being
provided e.g. “We only supply the basic
wheelchair – no adaptations” or “we don’t
supply special beds” Can such blanket
policies be defended?
• Should statutory services take regard of
the needs of a child to assess equipment
to give them a near normal experience of
life? When we hear of children who cannot
go to school because of a lack of a
wheelchair or who cannot sleep without
pain or who cannot sit at the table with
their family like other children or who are
housebound because of a policy to only
provide indoor use wheelchairs, we ask
surely this cannot be right?
• What does the Children’s Act and the
Human Rights Act say about protecting
children and in particular protecting them
from coming to harm/injury or prevent a
worsening of their conditions?
• Can statutory services require parents to
pay towards essential equipment when
they do not have the means to pay. Or only
provide the first hundred pounds towards
and five thousand pounds wheelchair?
• What are the national guidelines provided
by Government and its Ministers?
• What existing examples are there where
the courts have already acted to protect
children in respect of equipment provision?
• Often children and families are refused
equipment and given little or no
information about why. So do statutory
authorities have to be transparent in their
setting of policies and in the decisions
they make?
We hope that in defining the guidance on
these and other points we will be able to
provide this information to:
• Statutory authorities to assist them in
future decisions.
• Families and children in helping them
understand their rights.
• MPs and charities to help them provide
guidance to those calling upon them for
assistance.
“
Is it lawful or
defensible that
assessments and
provision is lengthy
and often delayed
and equipment
often refused on
the basis of
resource
availability?
”
38
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Local
Authorities
Landscape Statistics
This information was provided under the Freedom of Information Act. We asked
every Local Authoritiy and PCT in the UK for the following information for the last
year that figures are available "the amount of money spent on the provision of
equipment to disabled children in your area." These are the responses:
Local Authorities that provided statistical Information:
Local Authority Name
“
”
“
Families have no
faith left in statutory
service providers
”
Money spent
Portsmouth City Council
£20,200.00
Carlisle City Council
£1,200.00
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council
£21,352.16
Conwy County BC
£1,676.00
Hartlepool BC
£22,000.00
Swansea City & BC
£3,500.00
West Berkshire Council
£22,440.00
City of London
£3,659.00
Clackmannanshire Council
£22,896.85
Hounslow London BC
£4,074.00
Perth & Kinross Council
£23,588.32
Blackpool BC
£5,680.00
Bexley London BC
£24,000.00
Denbighshire CC
£6,601.00
North East Lincolnshire Council
£24,222.00
Ceredigion CC
£6,823.07
Stoke on Trent City Council
£24,535.00
East Dunbartonshire Council
£6,834.09
Tower Hamlets London BC
£25,437.00
East Renfrewshire Council
£7,500.00
Cheshire CC
£25,914.00
Pembrokeshire CC
£8,115.00
Walsall Metropolitan BC
£25,987.00
Bracknell Forest BC
£9,000.00
Monmouthshire CC
£26,333.79
West Dunbartonshire Council
£9,500.00
Kensington & Chelsea Royal BC £27,046.28
Gwynedd CC
We are already
aware that families
with a disabled
child are under a
financial burden
Money spent
£850.30
Telford & Wrekin BC
£10,000.00
Dumfries & Galloway Council
£27,362.00
St Helens Metropolitan BC
£10,685.66
Havering London BC
£29,150.00
Darlington BC
£11,616.00
Sutton London BC
£30,000.00
Carmarthenshire CC
£11,625.74
Wrexham County BC
£30,000.00
Bournemouth BC
£12,300.00
Highland Council
£31,315.00
Bath & NE Somerset Council
£13,336.99
Shetland Islands Council
£31,409.28
Haringey London BC
£13,360.00
East Ayrshire Council
£32,464.04
Stockton-on-Tees BC
£13,631.00
Dudley Metropolitan BC
£34,440.00
Argyll & Bute Council
£13,987.00
Torbay Council
£35,879.00
Blaenau Gwent CC BC
£14,423.28
North Yorkshire CC
£36,115.55
North Tyneside Metropolitan BC £15,000.00
Lambeth London BC
£36,247.12
Oxfordshire CC
£15,000.00
Oldham Metropolitan BC
£36,358.00
Stockport Metropolitan BC
£15,000.00
Plymouth City Council
£36,888.17
Windsor & Maidenhead Royal BC £15,565.00
Thurrock Council
£38,079.15
Falkirk Council
£15,838.00
Leicestershire CC
£40,000.00
Medway Council
£16,000.00
Northamptonshire CC
£40,000.00
Merton London BC
£17,000.00
City of Wakefield Metropolitan DC £42,815.00
Southampton City Council
£17,000.00
Derby City Council
£43,281.00
Reading BC
£17,700.00
Vale of Glamorgan Council
£44,635.90
Newry & Mourne DC
£18,119.00
Westminster City Council
£45,146.00
Rotherham Metropolitan BC
£19,000.00
Redbridge London BC
£45,235.00
Merthyr Tydfil County BC
£20,000.00
Crawley BC
£47,406.00
Wandsworth BC
£20,000.00
Swindon BC
£47,984.76
39
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Money spent
Money spent
Worchestershire Council
£48,030.00
Harrow London BC
£92,697.00
North Lincolnshire Council
£48,615.70
Wiltshire CC
£95,913.00
Middlesbrough Council
£49,694.23
Derbyshire CC
£97,282.00
East Sussex CC
£50,000.00
Rochdale Metropolitan BC
£99,000.00
Northumberland CC
£50,000.00
Cumbria CC
Bolton Metropolitan BC
£52,000.00
Sefton Council
£101,252.00
Hampshire CC
£53,211.00
Calderdale Metropolitan BC
£108,187.45
Bury Metropolitan BC
£53,964.00
Angus Council
£113,304.00
Wolverhampton City Council
£54,148.34
£99,940.00
North Lanarkshire Council
£120,000.00
Waltham Forest London Borough £56,039.00
Norfolk CC
£121,722.00
Peterborough City Council
£57,000.00
Nottinghamshire CC
£125,600.00
Torfaen County BC
£57,295.55
Manchester City Council
£132,662.32
York City Council
£57,296.00
City of Bradford Metropolitan DC £137,096.00
South Gloucestershire Council
£57,939.00
Suffolk CC
£142,474.00
Nottingham City Council
£59,577.00
Herefordshire CC
£143,375.00
Slough BC
£60,569.00
Kent CC
£145,718.00
Bedfordshire CC
£61,719.00
Western Isles Council
£159,972.10
South Cambridgeshire DC
£62,000.00
Newham London BC
£167,972.03
Kingston upon Hull City Council £64,331.00
Lancashire CC
£179,818.00
Essex CC
£65,000.00
Lincolnshire CC
£225,434.00
Caerphilly County BC
£67,606.00
Sunderland City Council
£226,392.52
Milton Keynes Council
£68,000.00
Glasgow City Council
£229,628.00
Dorset CC
£71,608.00
Surrey CC
£230,000.00
Stirling Council
£72,572.00
Hertfordshire CC
£244,816.00
Luton BC
£72,638.00
Cornwall CC
£250,000.00
Leicester City Council
£72,741.00
Kirklees Metropolitan BC
£301,766.26
South Tyneside Metropolitan BC £72,794.00
Hackney London BC
£78,215.59
Leeds City Council
£80,000.00
Durham CC
£80,401.00
Ealing London BC
£83,392.55
Barnsley Metropolitan BC
£84,734.00
Sandwell Metropolitan BC
£85,761.90
Buckingham CC
£87,153.00
North Somerset DC
£90,000.00
South Lanarkshire Council
£90,015.92
Shropshire CC
£92,000.00
“
25% of children’s
needs were
satisfied by the
third sector
* This includes statutory services who we
believe, based on their written response, to
have provided a full information/figure.
Continue...
BC - Borough Council CC - County Council DC - District Council
“
”
Our child
deserves the best
start in life just like
anyone else
”
40
...continued
IT'S NOT TO
MUCH TOO ASK
FINAL REPORT
Local
Authorities
Local Authorities unable to provide statistical information or
provided information that couldn't be used*.
“Umpteen obese
dogs fights the
slightly progressive
aardvarks”
Barking & Dagenham London BC
Isle of Scilly Council
Birmingham City Council
Isle of Wight Council
Blackburn with Darwen BC
Knowsley Metropolitan BC
Bridgend County BC
Midlothian Council
Cambridgeshire CC
Oswestry BC
Camden London BC
Powys CC
Castle Point BC
Renfrewshire Council
Chester City Council
Richmond upon Thames London BC
Coventry City Council
Salford City Council
Devon CC
Solihull Metropolitan BC
Doncaster Metropolitan BC
Somerset CC
Dundee City Council
South Holland DC
Edinburgh City Council
Staffordshire CC
Fife Council
Wansbeck DC
Flintshire CC
Warwickshire CC
Gloucestershire CC
Wigan Metropolitan BC
Inverclyde Council
“
Families often call
usClaus,
in crisis,
when
Santa
even though
two
poisons
comfortably
sacrificed
their
homes
are
umpteen progressive botulisms.
about
be
Klingons
gossips.to
Umpteen
obeserepossessed.
chrysanthemums very
drunkenly tickled two speedy
By Umpteen
this stage,
fountains.
obese dogs
fights
the slightlyhave
progressive
families
no
aardvarks.
faithperused
left in
Quark
fivestatutory
partly angstridden
dogs. Umpteen
obese
service
providers.
Quark perused five partly angstridden dogs.”
”
Medical Director
Local Authorities that failed to respond within the deadline†.
Barnet London BC
Londonderry City Council
Colchester BC
Newcastle under Lyme BC
Corby BC
Newport City Council
Croydon London BC
Orkney Islands Council
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Redcar & Cleveland BC
Enfield London BC
Rhondda Cynon Taff County BC
Greenwich London BC
Rutland CC
Halton BC
Sheffield City Council
Hammersmith & Fulham London BC
Southend on Sea BC
Islington London BC
Southwark London BC
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Tonbridge & Malling BC
Lewisham London BC
Trafford Metropolitan Borough
Liverpool City Council
Warrington BC
Greater London Authority
West Sussex CC
* This may include statutory authorities who :
•
•
•
•
Provided the a figure for a period other than the financial year 2005/06.
Provided a figure but could not distinguish between adult and paediatric budgets.
Could not seperate their funding from that of another statutory body
Were unable to provide the information because of the way that they keep their records.
†
This may include statutory authorities who failed to supply a figure or clarification of a figure within a time period despite being given a
substantially longer than the 20 days stated under the Freedom of Information Act.
41
IT'S NOT TO
MUCH TOO ASK
FINAL REPORT
Primary Care Trusts that provided statistical Information:
PCT Name
Money spent
PCT Name
Wyre Forest PCT
Nil spending
Solihull PCT
South Tyneside PCT
Nil spending
Isle Of Wight PCT
£13,340.00
North Devon PCT
Nil spending
North Surrey PCT
£13,609.00
North East Lincolnshire PCT
Nil spending
South Hams & West Devon PCT £13,660.00
Harlow PCT
£504.00
Mendip PCT
£547.00
South Worcestershire PCT
Money spent
£13,032.00
£14,000.00
Redditch & Bromsgrove PCT
South Western Staffordshire PCT £1,000.00
Sedgefield PCT
£14,000.00
West Hull PCT
£1,603.00
Surrey Heath & Woking PCT
£14,000.00
Blackwater Valley & Hart PCT
£3,000.00
Telford & Wrekin PCT
£14,994.00
North Hampshire PCT
Darlington PCT
£15,000.00
Hyndburn & Ribble Valley PCT
£4,336.99
Mid Devon PCT
£15,000.00
Central Cheshire PCT
£4,341.40
Richmond & Twickenham PCT
£15,218.00
Eastern Hull PCT
£4,475.00
Slough PCT
£15,644.00
Uttlesford PCT
£4,545.12
Hambleton & Richmondshire PCT £15,725.00
Newcastle-under-Lyme PCT
£4,580.00
Poole PCT
£16,000.00
East Elmbridge & Mid Surrey PCT £4,756.25
Sussex Downs & Weald PCT
£16,020.04
Epping Forest PCT
£4,759.22
Derwentside PCT
£19,000.00
Swale PCT
£5,405.00
Preston PCT
£20,895.00
Fylde PCT
£21,893.00
Medway PCT
£22,000.00
Royston, Buntingford &
Bishop's Stortford PCT
£6,086.00
North Hertfordshire & Stevenage PCT £22,471.00
South East Hertfordshire PCT
Bexhill & Rother PCT
£6,193.95
Maldon & South Chelmsford PCT £22,900.00
Hartlepool PCT
£6,277.00
Eastbourne Downs PCT
£23,177.42
Amber Valley PCT
£7,778.00
Dacorum PCT
£23,798.00
South West Kent PCT
£8,657.80
Watford & Three Rivers PCT
East Hampshire PCT
£8,744.00
Fareham & Gosport PCT
Portsmouth PCT
Hastings & St Leonards PCT
£8,876.59
Broadland PCT
£9,000.00
Norwich PCT
East Cambridgeshire & Fenland PCT £24,679.60
Easington PCT
£25,000.00
Trafford North PCT
£25,000.00
Trafford South PCT
Kensington & Chelsea PCT
£25,250.00
South Stoke PCT
£25,852.00
East Devon PCT
£9,639.06
Witham, Braintree &
Bassetlaw PCT
£10,000.00
Halstead Care Trust
Wolverhampton City PCT
£11,486.00
Bury PCT
£26,178.47
East Surrey PCT
£12,000.00
Guildford & Waverley PCT
£27,160.00
Eastern Cheshire PCT
£12,000.00
Halton PCT
£27,300.00
Erewash PCT
£12,186.00
Swindon PCT
£27,898.00
Kennet & North Wiltshire PCT
£29,027.66
Derbyshire Dales & South Derbyshire
North Stoke PCT
£12,467.52
Durham Dales PCT
£13,000.00
£26,160.00
West Wiltshire PCT
Continue...
“
We are constantly
told by PCTs and
Local Authorities
that while they
spend very little on
equipment for
children with
there
twodisabilities,
poisons comfortably
sacrificed umpteen progresare no children in
sive botulisms. Klingons
their area
that
have
gossips.
Umpteen
obese
chrysanthemums very drunkbeen assessed as
requiring
fountains.
Umpteen obese
dogs fights the slightly proequipment and
have gone
without.
perused
five partly
angst-ridden dogs."The pawnbroker
We know that this
not
true.
thoughis
two
poisons
comfort-
”
ably sacrificed umpteen progressive botulisms. Klingons
Medical Director
42
...continued
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Primary
Care
Trusts
Primary Care Trusts that provided statistical Information*:
PCT Name
Money spent
Durham & Chester-le-Street PCT £30,000.00
“
Provision of
many pieces of
equipment is
based on strict,
often unreachable
criteria, and not
on a child’s
actual need
”
£30,389.00
Doncaster East PCT
£32,120.00
Doncaster West PCT
Castle Point & Rochford PCT
£32,208.61
Croydon PCT
£52,500.00
Langbaurgh PCT
£32,819.34
Cambridge City PCT
£52,724.60
Crawley PCT
£33,000.00
Selby & York PCT
£54,085.00
Exeter PCT
£33,264.00
Haringey Teaching PCT
£56,000.00
South Cambridgeshire PCT
£34,775.80
Eastleigh & Test Valley South PCT £60,433.00
Gateshead PCT
£35,000.00
New Forest PCT
Lewisham PCT
£35,200.00
Barking & Dagenham PCT
£61,224.73
Torbay Care Trust
£35,765.00
Tower Hamlets PCT
£61,337.00
Cheltenham & Tewkesbury PCT
£36,478.16
Hillingdon PCT
£63,164.00
Maidstone Weald PCT
£65,000.00
Ashford PCT
£66,000.00
Billericay, Brentwood
& Wickford PCT
£38,000.00
Rochdale PCT
£38,353.00
Shepway PCT
Wandsworth PCT
£38,603.00
Canterbury & Coastal PCT
-
East Kent Coastal PCT
Kingston PCT
Plymouth Teaching PCT
£38,647.89
Southport & Formby PCT
£76,050.35
Islington PCT
£38,970.00
Heart of Birmingham PCT
£79,767.00
Blackpool PCT
£39,116.00
East Yorkshire PCT
£80,908.19
Dudley Beacon & Castle PCT
£41,131.00
Yorkshire Wolds & Coast
Tameside & Glossop PCT
£81,037.47
£41,286.68
Luton PCT
£85,835.00
Chelmsford PCT
£41,400.00
Eastern Wakefield PCT
£92,402.00
East Leeds PCT
£42,000.00
Bromley PCT
£94,320.00
North Eastern Derbyshire PCT
£98,876.00
Dudley South PCT
Cotswold & Vale PCT
Chesterfield PCT
High Peak & dales PCT
Leeds West PCT
”
£52,310.00
Wyre PCT
Leeds North West PCT
“
Doncaster Central PCT
Money spent
Milton Keynes PCT
Leeds North East PCT
Charities met a
25% equivalent of
statutory spending
PCT Name
Bolton PCT,
South Leeds PCT
Havering PCT
£42,440.00
Charnwood &
Calderdale PCT
£42,670.00
NW Leicestershire PCT
Westminster PCT
£48,000.00
Eastern Leicester
Western Sussex PCT
£48,234.71
Leicester City West PCT
Huntingdonshire PCT
£48,398.00
South Leicestershire
Windsor, Ascot & Maidenhead PCT £49,641.00
£117,128.00
£120,000.00
Melton, Rutland & Harborough PCT
Lincolnshire SW Teaching PCT
£50,874.08
Bracknell Forest PCT
£127,000.00
Adur, Arun & Worthing PCT
£51,984.75
North Manchester PCT
£132,282.00
Carlisle & District PCT
£52,000.00
Ashfield PCT,
£136,447.00
Mansfield & District PCT
Newark & Sherwood PCT
43
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
PCT Name
Money spent
Burnley, Pendle & Rossendale PCT £136,879.00
North Peterborough PCT
£147,840.00
Brighton & Hove City PCT
£148,584.00
Chorley & South Ribble PCT
£148,956.50
Central Cornwall PCT
£149,483.00
North Tyneside PCT
£150,000.00
Wakefield West PCT
£163,379.93
Airedale PCT
£164,000.00
Bradford City Teaching PCT
£178,000.00
Beavington & West Wirrall PCT
£178,723.00
Wednesbury &
West Bromwich PCT
Rowley Regis & Tipton PCT
Oldbury & Smethwick PCT
Nottingham City PCT
£226,075.00
Broxtowe & Hucknall PCT
“
Gedling PCT
Rushcliffe PCT
Lambeth PCT
£227,196.00
Newham PCT
£246,275.00
North Liverpool PCT
£260,906.47
Central Suffolk PCT
North Bradford PCT
City & Hackney Teaching PCT
£191,110.00
”
Central Liverpool PCT
Bradford South & West PCT
Birkenhead & Wallasey PCT
Somerset Coast PCT
Most children with
disabilities will need
several pieces of
equipment
£187,169.00
£264,919.40
Suffolk Coastal PCT
Suffolk West PCT
West Gloucestershire PCT
£293,000.00
Stockport PCT
£302,592.00
Huddersfield Central PCT
£303,367.00
South Huddersfield PCT
Southampton City PCT
£441,820.28
* This includes statutory services who we believe, based on their written response, to have provided a full information/figure.
Continue...
“
Some families
have been told that
they are on a six
month waiting list,
only to find six
months later that
there is no record
of their child’s
application
”
44
...continued
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Primary
Care
Trusts
Primary Care Trusts unable to provide statistical information or
provided information that couldn't be used*.
“
On average,
statutory services
spend little more
than £30 per child
on special disability
equipment
”
“
In the UK there
are believed to be
in excess of
770,000 children
with disabilities
”
Ashton, Leigh & Wigan PCT
Mid-Sussex PCT
Barnet PCT
Newbury & Community PCT
Barnsley PCT
Eastern Birmingham PCT
Bath & North East Somerset PCT
South Birmingham PCT
Bedford PCT
North Birmingham PCT
Bedfordshire Heartlands PCT
North Dorset PCT
Bexley Care Trust,
North Kirklees PCT
Blackburn With Darwen PCT
North Lincolnshire PCT
Bournemouth Teaching PCT
North Somerset PCT
Brent Teaching PCT
North Warwickshire PCT
Bristol South & West PCT
Northampton PCT
Burntwood, Lichfield & Tamworth PCT
Northamptonshire Heartlands PCT
Camden PCT
Northumberland Care Trust,
Cannock Chase PCT
North Tees PCT
Central Derby PCT
Oldham PCT
Greater Derby PCT
Reading PCT
Central Manchester PCT
Rotherham PCT
Cherwell Vale PCT
Salford PCT
North East Oxfordshire PCT
Scarborough, Whitby & Ryedale PCT
Oxford City PCT
Shropshire County PCT
South East Oxfordshire PCT
South & East Dorset PCT
Cheshire West PCT
South East Sheffield PCT
Chiltern & South Bucks PCT
North Sheffield PCT
Colchester PCT
Sheffield South West PCT
Coventry Teaching PCT
Sheffield West PCT
Craven, Harrogate & Rural District PCT
South Gloucestershire PCT
East Staffordshire PCT
South Manchester PCT
Ellesmere Port & Neston PCT
South Sefton PCT
Great Yarmouth PCT
South Somerset PCT
Greenwich Teaching PCT
South Warwickshire PCT
Hammersmith & Fulham PCT
South West Dorset PCT
Harrow PCT
South Wiltshire PCT
Herefordshire PCT
Southend On Sea PCT
Hertsmere PCT
Southwark PCT
St Albans & Harpenden PCT
Sutton & Merton PCT
Heywood & Middleton PCT
Taunton Deane PCT
Horsham & Chanctonbury PCT
Tendring PCT
Ipswich PCT
Thurrock PCT
Middlesbrough PCT
Vale Of Aylesbury PCT
Mid-Hampshire PCT
Walsall Teaching PCT
45
Waveney PCT
North Glamorgan NHS Trust
Welwyn Hatfield PCT
Swansea NHS Trust
West Lancashire PCT
Velindre NHS Trust
West Lincolnshire PCT
Eastern Health & Social Services Board
West Of Cornwall PCT
Down Lisburn Trust
Wokingham PCT
The Royal Hospitals
NHS Ayrshire & Arran
Mater Hospitals
NHS Dunfries & Galloway
Causeway Health & Social Services trusts
NHS Highland
NHS Grampian
NHS Shetland
Bro Morganning NHS Trust
NHS Tayside HQ
North East Wales NHS Trust
Conwy & Denbighshire NHS Trust
Warrington PCT,
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Primary Care Trusts that failed to respond within the deadline†.
Basildon PCT
Teignbridge PCT
Dartford, Gravesham & Swanley PCT
Waltham Forest PCT
Ealing PCT
Waveney PCT
East Lincolnshire PCT
West Norfolk PCT
Enfield PCT
NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde
Hounslow PCT
Lothian NHS Board
Knowsley PCT
NHS Orkney
Morecambe Bay PCT
NHS Western Isles
North & East Cornwall PCT
Carmarthenshire NHS Trust
Redbridge PCT
Ceredigion & Mid Wales NHS Trust
Rugby PCT
Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust
South Peterborough PCT
North West Wales NHS Trust
St Helens PCT
Pembrokeshire & Derwen NHS Trust
Staffordshire Moorlands PCT
Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust
Sunderland Teaching PCT
Southern Health & Social Services Board
PCTs that refused to allow BDF Newlife to re-use the information
they provided.
North Norfolk PCT
Southern Norfolk PCT
* This may include statutory authorities who :
•
•
•
•
Provided the a figure for a period other than the financial year 2005/06.
Provided a figure but could not distinguish between adult and paediatric budgets.
Could not seperate their funding from that of another statutory body
Were unable to provide the information because of the way that they keep their records.
This may include statutory authorities who failed to supply a figure or clarification of a figure within a time period despite being
given a substantially longer than the 20 days stated under the Freedom of Information Act.
†
“
Buggies for
children with
disabilities are often
ten times the price
of a standard
buggy; costing
between £180 and
£3,000
”
“
One in three of
these children may
be having
difficulties in getting
essential, basic
equipment
”
46
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
The Future
of the Campaign
The scale of failing and the impact on children means our campaign will go on.
We will focus on:
Advocacy
“
We don't think
these children
should have to face
a lengthy wait, or
be told they can't
have the specialist
equipment that
would have a huge
impact on their
quality of life.
”
Medical Director
Navigating the multitude of assessments,
criteria and application forms can be
complex and overwhelming and the families
that we have helped have so far been very
grateful for the extra assistance.
Our advocacy work ties in with the contact
that we have with MPs. Working with MPs
has been particularly successful where a
piece of equipment has cost over £6,000.
Here we have asked MPs to go back to
statutory providers and query decisions.
In the time that we have been involved in this
area we have had a decision not to provide a
young man with a powered wheelchair
reversed. We are also in the process of
obtaining a £2,500 voucher towards a Child
and Family Grant for a powered wheelchair
after the family had been told no money was
available by the Wheelchair Service. Most
recently we have had a decision to not
provide a child with a sleep system reversed,
this child will be receiving her equipment
soon.
Annual Index
We heard of too many cases where a child
was waiting too long for equipment they
desperately needed, or where their family
was told nothing was available.
Why should a child have to be strapped into
bed because they don't have the proper
support bed to fit them? Why should a child
have to miss school because he can't get a
wheelchair to get there?
We don't think these children should have to
face a lengthy wait, or be told they can't have
the specialist equipment that would have a
huge impact on their quality of life. We don't
think they should be caused pain or injury
through lack of equipment. When a child is
suffering, we want to help, and we do.
So far we have helped over a thousand
children and families and we want to help
many more. Moreover, we want the system to
change so that these children don't have to
face these problems.
Despite the fact that we are often replacing
statutory services, we will continue for as
long as our funds allow, to provide Child and
Family Grants to families facing hardship
because of a lack of equipment.
We pledge to annually audit:
• The spending of these statutory services
Best Practice
• The spending of charities in filling the
unmet need
We will endeavour to establish areas and
examples of best practice in provision by areas
and departments and we will disseminate this
information to assist improvements and
innovations in delivery of equipment. We will
also annually ask families to nominate local
areas and statutory services that are:
• The reasons for failure to supply
equipment and families and professionals
experiences.
We will publish this information annually to
monitor and hopefully drive improvement.
• Succeeding
• Improving
Child and Family Grants
We created this scheme because we heard
too many times about too many children who
weren't getting the help they need, when
they needed it.
• Failing
We will then publish this information in the
future to encourage and drive forward
improvements.
“there is no statutory
funding for this”
47
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Conclusion
Failing to provide properly for disabled children is a national disgrace
and our report has found that in England, Scotland and Wales an
average of just £30.42 is spent on essential equipment for each child.
Families in Northern Ireland are telling us of major problems in getting
essential equipment for their disabled children and we will be focusing
on this area shortly.
This cannot be allowed to continue.
We call upon the Government and its agencies to take action to:
• Ensure the different government agencies work together and
have clear lines of responsibility
Leilani, aged 2,
East Midlands
• Set a standardised assessment criteria and end the 'postcode
lottery' of provision
“Leilani has a rare
chromosome disorder. This
has meant
she has
low
The
pawnbroker
untangles
muscleClaus,
tone and
Santa
even though
development
delay and
two
poisons comfortably
needed
supportive
sacrificed umpteenseating.
progresWe were
told that
we couldn’t
sive
botulisms.
Klingons
apply to anyone
because
gossips.
Umpteen
obesethe
equipment was toovery
expensive
chrysanthemums
drunkto
be
funded
by
the
playgroup that
she attends.
fountains.
Umpteen
obese
• Guarantee the spending on children with disabilities is ringfenced from other pressures and is adequate
• Ensure the needs of disabled children and are addressed
promptly and assign a key worker to each family with a child with
complex disabilities
• Provide timely assessments carried out by trained professionals
• Provide equipment in a speedy and efficient manner
We call upon the all MPs to support the following
Early Day Motion
BDF Newlife is asking our supporting MPs to take an Early Day
Motion to be tabled in the House of Commons relating to our
campaign. EDMs are parliamentary motions calling for a debate on a
particular subject.
In modern Parliament they rarely lead to full debates, but are an
effective means of canvassing support, discovering MPs views and
keeping real issues in the political eye. People can support it by
urging their MP to sign the EDM.
Our EDM says - “That this House supports the improved provision of
essential equipment to disabled and terminally ill children.”
“That the House notes with concern that the current system is failing
thousands of disabled and terminally ill children and their families.”
We call upon Government to ensure that these children are provided
for based on their individually assessed need in a timely and holistic
manner and that criteria for equipment is standardised to put an end
to postcode lottery provision.
dogs fights the slightly proBecause Leilani didn’t have
the seating system that she
perused five partly angst-ridneeded, she was unable to
den dogs."The pawnbroker
join in with activities at
playgroup. She couldn’t do
though two poisons comfortactivities such as crafts and
ably sacrificed umpteen prosnack time and was unable to
gressive botulisms. Klingons
have eye contact with her
support worker, who had to
chrysanthemums very drunksit behind her to help and
support her. It is particularly
important that Leilani has eye
dogs fights the slightly procontact so that she can
develop her Makaton signing.
perused five partly angst-ridChildren grow up so quickly
den dogs.”
and any delay can affect their
learning and
family
life a
Professor
Michael
A Patton
great deal.”
Medical
Director
48
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
About BDF Newlife
BDF Newlife, was founded as the Birth Defects Foundation, in 1991 and is currently
celebrating its 16th anniversary year. A group of parents, doctors and business
people with a shared passion gave the charity a very clear aim - to fight birth defects
which cause disability and terminal conditions.
“
We will continue to
stand up for the
rights of disabled
and terminally ill
children and their
caring families.
”
Inborn conditions, or birth defects, are the
syndromes, diseases and malformations that
have a common link - they occur in the
womb. These conditions can be minor, but
others are life threatening. They can cause
distress and heartache, affect ability, physical
and mental development, senses, organs,
limbs and lifespan.
Our aim is to tackle the problems these
conditions bring by:
• Funding pioneering research
raised awareness amongst the general public,
and amongst targeted groups, about general
and specific issues - such as using simple
steps to reduce the risk of birth defects.
Recognising the need for practical help, we
developed our Child and Family Grants
service to provide a lifeline to families with
very real and urgent needs. Our unique
Special Source website information service
gives useful and practical information to
families and health professionals. These are
just some of the ways we have helped.
• Providing services to support families
• Raising awareness among the general
public and decision-makers
16 Years of Passion
Medical Director
Over the last 16 years we have achieved
many things. The term "birth defects" is now
a phrase in common usage. It wasn't so when
we began, but our campaigning has pushed
awareness of birth defects into the public
arena.
BDF Newlife is established as the leading
child health, research and care services
charity. We have developed a portfolio of
services that actively benefit affected babies
and children and make a real difference to
them and their families.
We have funded well over a hundred research
projects investigating the causes, treatment
and prevention of these conditions. We have
Caring Today, Caring Tomorrow
There is still much to do. While we've been
fortunate to be able to help hundreds,
thousands of families through our work, every
day in this country, another 124 babies are
born affected.
We will continue to care. We will continue to
serve these very special disabled and
terminally ill children. We will continue to
develop and target our services to meet the
specific needs of the babies, children and
families who need us.
We Listen
BDF provides information and support on
over 3,000 conditions and covers thousands
more where no diagnosis or condition name
exists. This Key generic role accross the UK
allows us to see and respond to the very wide
experiences of children and their families in
49
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
“Newlife - giving new hope”
CAMPAIGN REPORT
“every day in this country, another 124
babies are born affected”
the UK. We will continue to listen to these
voices to understand the success's and the
failures they encounter daily. We will continue
to stand up for the rights of disabled and
terminally ill children and their caring families.
A Broad Vision
We have always taken a pioneering view on
researching inborn conditions and have
contributed many gene discoveries to the
Human Genome Map that will shape the
future direction of medicine in the next
millennium. Our broad remit means that,
unlike other condition specific research
charities, we have supported research across
a wide range of disabilities and benefited a
great number of families.
Our start up projects are an innovative form of
research funding in that they allow
researchers to explore a research idea and if
successful can apply to our own or other
research charities for major funding. Some of
the start up projects have been successful on
their own such as finding a gene for a major
heart defect while others have gone on to
receive program grant support from Wellcome
or MRC.
Research Projects
BDF Newlife has supported over 70 projects
in universities across the United Kingdom.
Our relationship with the biomedical research
community is excellent and this is reflected in
the very high standard of research that is
funded. We have ensured that the results of
the research is published and have funded
researchers to present the work at national
and international meetings where the results
can be translated into improved clinical care
for children and their families.
We have also funded national chromosome
databases that allow all the diagnostic labs to
share information about the rarer
chromosome abnormalities.
We can undertake funding in partnership with
other organisations. We can help fund familyled research (where a family is raising funds
for specific research, possibly in memory of a
child) and "leverage/part funding", where we
can provide initial funding for a project, to
help attract funding from other organisations.
We have a longstanding commitment to
research into Noonan Syndrome, and fund
the Noonan Syndrome Unit at St George's
Hospital in London. This group found the
gene for the disorder and now have
transferred this to the NHS where a national
testing service is available.
Our research has had many successes
including the identification of new genes and
new diagnostic tests for the disorders that
cause disability in childhood. In some cases
this has also lead to new approaches to
treatment and with further research the
opportunities for the future are very exciting.
“
BDF Newlife
research has had
many successes
giving hope to
improve childrens
health today and
tomorrow
”
Medical Director
50
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
The final word
Many children and families have inspired this campaign. But asked which children
put the passion into this campaign I would cite Jordan and Ben.
We here at BDF Newlife still cry in frustration
when we think of them and the situations they
faced. Their suffering gave us the passion to
make a difference for children today and
tomorrow. Read this page and join us in
knowing that, for our precious children, it’s
not too much to ask that they get the
equipment they need.
Jordan from Wales
chrysanthemums very drunkgiving
enlyNewlife
tickled two-speedy
fountains.
Umpteen
obese
new hope.
“ ”
Medical Director
Jordan is nine years old and since birth he
has suffered from severe seizures, a
worsening condition that won’t respond to
treatment, Jordan’s condition is considered
life-limiting. To protect him from regular falls
he has to wear a type of crash helmet and his
family has spent his short life trying
desperately to make their home safe. In a fall
last year, he smacked his head so hard that it
split the helmet and he cut his head badly.
The family pleaded with the authorities to
provide them with crash mats for use around
the house. They all refused to help. When we
saw these images, we knew that, unlike
statutory services, we couldn’t ignore Jordan,
we had to act.
Looking after Ben was a 24 hour a day job for
his family. His family started asking for help
getting him up and down stairs when he was
six. They received a hoist to use in the house,
but never received the help in respect of the
stairs. Up until the day Ben died his mum and
dad were still carrying him up and down the
stairs. Ben was 13 years old and seven stone.
This was not only difficult for them but
because of his condition it caused Ben a
huge amount of pain every time they carried
him. When Ben passed away they were still
waiting for the bedroom extension and the lift
to be agreed. He never did get his car seat.
Ben’s mum told us “We were stranded by
statutory services. Nobody seemed to
understand that while they were arguing
about who should pay for the equipment, Ben
was suffering. I am still very angry about this.”
ACTION!
For Jordan: BDF Newlife provided Jordan's
crash mats within three days of hearing from
his loving Mum. Cost = £1,190
For Ben: To our enduring and heartfelt regret
we heard of Ben and his wonderful family, too
late to help him before his death.
Cost = immeasurable.
Please don’t delay, support this
campaign in any way you can, to help
more children like Jordan and Ben.
Mrs. Sheila Brown OBE FRSM
Ben from the Midlands
CEO
Ben was diagnosed with Hunter's Syndrome.
He died when he was 13 years-old. In the last
three years of his life Ben lost the ability to
see, walk, talk and eat solids. When Ben died
he was incontinent and almost completely
deaf.
BDF Newlife
51
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
References and Thanks
We have accomplished a lot through this campaign.
But there is much more that we want to achieve. The Trustees of BDF Newlife wish
to thank all the parents, families, professionals and MPs. Also all the businesses
and caring people who have helped us raise funds, who have worked with us and
who want to make a difference, on behalf of the disabled and terminally ill babies,
children and families in the UK.
In particular we would also like to thank:
Dr. Tony Wright MP without whom a
campaign of this nature would not have been
possible.
To all those who signed the petition or
collected signatures. Every name counts, so
Thank you for caring.
Clare Griffiths, BDF Newlife’s Campaign
Manager, for her tenacity, passion and skills in
helping children and families.
A special thank you to all the families who
opened their hearts and shared their tears
and told their real life stories of caring for very
special children.
Chris Strange, BDF Newlife’s PR Manager,
whose caring journalistic skills have bought
the plight of hundreds of children and families
to the attention of the media locally and
nationally.
BDF Newlife Nurses and staff in our Grants
and Care Services Department for their skills
in listening and caring for frustrated, tired,
desperate families and for processing grant
applications to bring relief and joy to over a
thousand children.
All PCTs and Local Authorities (Professional
and Administrative staff) who responded to
our enquiries.
To the MPs who offered support, especially
those who have offered or intervened on
behalf of families.
To grant making charities who provided
data and information who make a difference
to the health and welfare of so many children.
To the children who have told us, in their
own words, of their plight and who speak for
those children who have no voice to call out
for help.
REFERENCES
1) Government Every Child Matters Website
http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/socialca
re/disabledchildren/facts/
2) NHS England website
http://www.nhs.uk/England/AuthoritiesTrusts/
Pct/Default.aspx
3) Total spend of PCTs who replied to the
request for information, divided by the
number of PCTs that responded, multiplied by
the amount of PCTs, divided by the
approximate number of disabled children in
the UK.
Report complied by Christopher Strange, PR Manager
and Clare Griffiths, Campaign Manager
“
I think that
the authorities
don't think about
how difficult it can
be without having
to ask or beg for
things
thatthough
are
Santa
Claus, even
two poisons
comfortably
really needed.
”
Medical Director
52
IT'S NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK
CAMPAIGN REPORT
Glossary of Medical Terms
Autism: A developmental disorder with onset usually
before the age of three. The main characteristics
include problems with social interaction, difficulty
with communication and difficulty with imagination.
Achrondroplasia: Characteristics include a large
head and mainly short arms and legs.
Allergic enteropathy: An allergy affecting the
intestines or gut.
Adrenache: In puberty, it is the increase of the
hormone androgen, which leads to growth of pubic
hair etc.
Battens Disease: Characteristics include sight loss,
seizures, unsteadiness and intellectual deterioration.
Cerebral Palsy: This is a term for a group of
disorders in which there is impaired control of
movement, caused by faulty development or damage
to areas of the brain. The condition may be present
from birth or acquired as a result of complications of
pregnancy, extreme prematurity or neonatal illness.
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A rare, inherited
condition caused by loss of skeletal muscle tissues,
which are replaced by fat and fibrous tissue. The
main characteristics are reported to include delayed
walking, clumsiness, falling, unusual gait (waddling),
enlarged calf muscles with progressive weakness and
wasting.
Global developmental delay: General
developmental delay, including intellectual ability and
mobility.
Hemiplegia: Damage to the brain which affects one
side of the body.
Macrocephaly: Characterised by an abnormally large
head.
Neurofibromatisis Type 2: This is an uncommon
disorder characterised by benign tumours of the
nerves that transmit sound impulses from the inner
ears to the brain. The main characteristics include
disturbance of balance, dizziness, headache,
weakness, numbness or pain in the face, ringing in
the ears and progressive hearing loss.
Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease: There are several
forms of this condition, which is a rare, progressive,
degenerative disorder of the central nervous system.
Reflux: Reflux occurs when whatever happens to be
in the stomach travels in the wrong direction - back
into the oesophagus. The most frequent symptom is
heartburn.
Rett syndrome: This is a rare disorder found almost
exclusively in females and the main characteristics
include loss of muscle tone, loss of previously
acquired skills, slowing of head growth, uncontrolled
hand movements such as handclapping and
wringing, inability to control voluntary movements,
walking difficulty, autistic behaviour and severe
learning difficulty
Sanfilippo syndrome: Individuals experience
progressive dementia and mental deterioration in
childhood.
Scoliosis: Curvature of the spine.
Spinal Muscular Atrophy: There is an inability to sit
unsupported, inability to lift the head or achieve
normal milestones. Feeding and swallowing
difficulties may occur. There is also an associated
weakness of the muscles between the ribs.
OTHER TERMS
Freedom of Information Act (2000): The Act
requires all public authorities to be open with
information. The Act gives a general right of access to
all types of recorded information held by public
authorities. It sets out exemptions from that right and
places various obligations upon the authority. It
means that any person who makes a request to a
public authority for information must be informed
whether they hold that information and, subject to
exemptions, supply them with that information.
Local Authority: The term local authority covers a
complex system of regional government agencies.
This will include councils such as District, Borough,
County and Metropolitan. The term also covers
unitary authorities and education authorities.
PCT: A Primary Care Trust (PCT) is the organisation
that manages the people that you normally see when
you first have a health problem. It might be a visit to a
doctor or dentist, an optician for an eye test, or just a
trip to a pharmacist to buy cough mixture. NHS Walkin Centres, and the phone line service NHS Direct, are
also part of primary care. A PCT will work with local
authorities and other agencies that provide health
and social care locally to make sure a local
community's needs are being met. PCTs are now at
the centre of the NHS and control 80 per cent of the
NHS budget.
IN THE MATTER OF LEGAL ENTITLEMENTS TO EQUIPMENT FOR
DISABLED CHILDREN
1. Introduction I am asked to advise a charity, BDF Newlife (“BDF”), upon
various issues concerning the legal entitlements to equipment possessed by
disabled children and young persons. The request arises out of a report
written by the charity, “It’s Not Too Much to Ask”, which revealed
widespread failures to supply disabled children with essential equipment, and
contained many worrying or distressing examples of children and their
families suffering as a result.
2. I have been asked to frame my advice around eleven questions:a. The nature of the statutory responsibilities of social services authorities
and NHS primary care trusts;
b. The right to a timely assessment of needs;
c. The weight of that assessment in any funding decision;
d. The content of any national guidance;
e. The importance of national guidance, in guiding local decisions;
f. The legality of ‘blanket’ policies;
g. The importance of giving disabled children as near as normal a life as
possible;
h. Setting minimum standards: the importance of protecting a child from
harm, and of protecting against a deterioration in that child’s condition;
i. Contributions to costs, from parents;
j. The obligation to give reasons;
k. Examples in which the courts have acted to protect disabled children.
3. It is difficult to cover these very wide-ranging topics without writing a text
book. Inevitably, each child’s case will be different, and the legal problems –
and solutions – will vary. During the course of the advice, I have used
examples given to me by BDF. The details of each case were very short, and
may have omitted material issues. Any parent, carer or young person who is
affected by the general content of this advice would need to take specific
advice about their particular situation. I have also been selective in the areas I
have covered, seeking to address general themes rather than the specifics of
particular statutory regimes. The focus is upon social services authorities and
NHS primary care trusts; the interface with schools, local education authorities
and special educational needs is not covered. Finally, this advice does not
consider privately funded services, or the practices of private bodies, voluntary
organisations or charities.
Issue A: The Statutory Duties Owed by Social Services Authorities to
Disabled Children.
4. Children’s Services. The Children Act 1989 is the usual starting point for
assessing the duties of social services to children in their area. Section 17 of
1
the Children Act 1989 imposes a general 1 duty on local authorities to provide
appropriate services to children within their area who are “in need” – the
definition covers disabled children, as well as (for example) children at risk of
abuse or harm. The child’s needs should be assessed, and a decision then
taken on what services should be provided. 2 Schedule 2 of the Children Act
lays down more specific duties in relation to securing equality of opportunity
for disabled children. An authority should provide services designed to
“minimise the effect on disabled children within their area of their disabilities”
and “to give such children the opportunity to lead lives which are as normal as
possible.” 3 There is a certain degree of confusion as to the extent to which
duties under Schedule 2 of the Children Act are enforceable by an individual –
they are probably not, 4 in the courts, although this would not prevent the Local
Authority Ombudsman from assessing service provision under these headings.
5. However, a Children Act assessment may also ‘include’ an assessment of
needs under other enactments – including, for example, the Chronically Sick
and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Section 2 of this Act provides a specific and
enforceable duty to provide a range of services 5 whenever the authority is
satisfied that it is “necessary” to make provision to meet certain needs. If the
authority accepts that it is “necessary” to meet a need (and this is an important
pre-condition), and that need is one that may be met under the Chronically
Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, then there is an enforceable legal duty to
meet that need). 6
6. The Children Act 2004 is designed to support the government’s programme
(see “Every Child Matters”, below) to integrate children’s services. It has
established a duty on local authorities to make arrangements to promote cooperation between agencies and other bodies (eg voluntary bodies) in order to
promote children’s wellbeing. There is a requirement for a Children and
Young People’s Plan to be drawn up by each Local Authority.
7. It can be seen that these are broad, discretionary duties. In practice, the
breadth of the discretion available to local authorities is circumscribed by
central government guidance, as well as legal principle. These are discussed
further below, at paragraphs 34-38.
The Statutory Duties Owed by Primary Care Trusts (“PCTs”) to
Disabled Children.
8. The legal background to the National Health Service is to be found, first, in
the National Health Service Act 2006, the National Health Service (Wales)
Act 2006, and the National Health Service (Consequential Provisions) Act
1
This is a “target” duty which is not enforceable by an individual.
There is no equivalent of the obligation to assess which is found in s47(1) of the NHS and
Community Care Act 1990 – for adults. However, in R(G) v Barnet LBC and Others [2003] 3 WLR
1194, Lord Hope found that there was nevertheless an implied duty to assess, to fulfil the s17(1) duty.
3
Schedule 2, Part I paragraph 6, see also paragraph 8.
4
See Clements, “Community Care and the Law” para 18.21 – 18.23.
5
See the Act for full details – assistance may include ‘practical assistance in the home’, help in
travelling outside the home to (eg) school, and adaptations of the home.
6
R v Bexley LBC v B (2000) 3 CCLR 15; the local authority cannot avoid the duty by purporting to act
under the Children Act 1979.
2
2
2006 (repealing and replacing the National Health Service Act 1977). This
sets out the duties of the Secretary of State for Health and the Welsh Ministers
respectively, to continue the promotion in their area of a comprehensive health
service designed to secure improvement in people’s physical and mental
health, and in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness 7 . The
Secretary of State for Health and the Welsh Ministers has a general power to
provide, “such services as [he / they] 8 consider[s] appropriate for the purpose
of discharging any duty imposed on [him / them] 9 ” by this legislation, and to,
“do anything else which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental
to, the discharge of such a duty” 10 . He / they must provide, to such extent as
he / they consider necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, particular
services including, “medical, dental, ophthalmic, nursing and ambulance
services” 11 ; “such other services or facilities for the prevention of illness, the
care of persons suffering from illness and the after-care of persons who have
suffered from illness as [he/they] consider[s] are appropriate as part of the
health service” 12 ; and “such other services or facilities as are required for the
diagnosis and treatment of illness” 13 . Schedule 1 of both Acts makes further
provision about the Secretary of State / the Welsh Ministers and services under
these Acts, including the provision of vehicles for disabled persons 14 .
9. Local health bodies, such as the Strategic Health Authorities, Primary Care
Trusts and NHS Trusts (in England) and Local Health Boards and NHS Trusts
(in Wales), which commission health services for their local population, work
under powers delegated by the Secretary of State / Ministers for Wales under
this legislation. There are a series of statutory instruments which achieve this
transfer of powers.
10. It will be apparent to those reading this that health services for children, and
for disabled children, are not the subject of specific Acts of Parliament.
Rather, the NHS body is working within a broad statutory framework which
requires it to consider, and promote the healthcare needs of, each section of
the population. Inevitably, there will be difficult decisions to made on the
allocation of limited resources. There are no absolute entitlements to be
provided with particular treatments or services by the NHS, and NHS bodies
7
See section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, and section 1 of the National Health Service
(Wales) Act 2006. Section 3 of both Acts provides that the services so provided must be free of charge
except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any
enactment, whenever passed.
8
As applicable.
9
Section 2(1)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 / the National Health Service (Wales) Act
2006.
10
Section 2(1)(b) of the National Health Service Act 2006 / the National Health Service (Wales) Act
2006.
11
Section 3(1)(c) of the National Health Service Act 2006 / the National Health Service (Wales) Act
2006.
12
Section 3(1)(d) of the National Health Service Act 2006 / the National Health Service (Wales) Act
2006.
13
Section 3(1)(f) of the National Health Service Act 2006 / the National Health Service (Wales) Act
2006.
14
Schedule 1, paras 9-11 of the National Health Service Act 2006 / the National Health Service (Wales)
Act 2006.
3
may take their resources into account when deciding what treatments, etc
should be made available. 15
11. Again, as in the case of social services, these broad discretions are
circumscribed by central government guidance, as well as legal principle.
12. The divide between health and ‘social’ care. The divide between health and
social services has long caused problems. I am told that there are cases where
the provision of (say) a specialist bed is delayed whilst health and social
services argue about whether or not this is a ‘health’ or ‘social’ need, and who
should fund it. But Ministers have made it plain that they expect “services and
equipment for children with physical or mental disabilities and those with
complex health needs” to be “jointly planned between the local authority and
PCT, with plans based on a joint needs analysis, jointly commissioned and
resourced from pooled budgets were appropriate.” 16 If such arrangements
have not yet been set in place, the appropriate solution is for one organisation
to take the lead by funding the equipment, and then to resolve the dispute
between themselves – not to delay the decision until the dispute has been
sorted. 17
Issue B: Prompt Assessments of Need.
13. An expert assessment of needs is the starting place for any provision of
equipment or specialist services. BDF’s experience is that there are significant
problems in securing access to such assessments, typically because of very
long delays and waiting lists before the assessment will take place. During the
wait, children’s development, and their opportunities to live as normal a life as
possible will be seriously curtailed. Even more seriously, there will be time
when their health and safety is prejudiced by the lack of suitable of equipment,
or by the continued need to use unsuitable equipment.
14. There are further problems in securing reassessments as and when needs
change, once an initial assessment has taken place.
15. Assessments of Needs by Social Services Authorities. The “Framework for
the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families” (2000) remains the
main tool for social services assessments under the Children Act 1989. 18 It
was intended that the Framework would lead to a move from single agency
service-led assessments to “assessments of the whole child by a co-ordinated
15
See for example R v Cambridgeshire Health Authority ex p. B [1995] 1 WLR 898 R(Watts) v
Bedford PCT [2003] EWHC 2228, at paragraphs 44 – 55; R v North and East Devon HA, ex parte
Coughlan [2000] 2 WLR 622, paragraphs 23 – 25.
16
Letter to Chief Executives, PCTs and Chief Executives, Local Authorities: Gateway reference 7371.
See, equally, the Children Act 2004 and the Childcare Act 2006, which impose duties on local
authorities (in particular) to lead the work of securing partnership with other authorities and planning
services jointly. See also NSF Standard Eight paragraph 3.20.
17
Although it has to be noted that complex issues on funding would arise, given that non-NHS services
can be charged for, but NHS services cannot. Thus, if integrated Community Equipment Services are
developed which operate across the health and social care divide, councils will still retain the power to
charge for equipment – so some items would be chargeable, others would not.
18
There are now moves to develop and ‘roll out’ a Common Assessment Framework that would be
used by all professionals, but as I understand it, its implementation continues.
4
group of professionals.” 19 An assessment should address the need for
specialist disability equipment and assistive technology. 20
16. Local Authorities should comply with the guidance unless local circumstances
indicate exceptional reasons which justify a variation. 21 A general shortage
of resources or staffing difficulties (problems common to many if not all local
authorities) would not constitute such “exceptional” reasons. Further
commentary on the need for local bodies to follow and implement national
policies is set out below, at paragraphs 34 - 38.
17. The standard for a “core assessment” under the Framework (ie, a in-depth
assessment) is a maximum of 35 working days 22 (approximately seven weeks).
The guidance recognises that where specialist assessments have been
commissioned by social services from other agencies or independent
professionals, “they will not necessarily be completed within the 35 working
day period.” However, “appropriate services should be provided whilst
awaiting the completion of the specialist assessment.”
18. In the field of adult services, the Local Government Ombudsman has been
ready to criticise substantial delays, to find them unlawful and to award
compensation. For example, in reports in 1996, the Ombudsman found 6
month delays in adult assessments unlawful; if waiting lists are unavoidable,
cases should be prioritised so as to ensure that the most urgent receive the
quickest attention 23 . Notably, she reiterated her view that if there was a
shortage of occupational therapists, then they should not be used for
assessment purposes: “If such expertise is not available, councils need to find
an alternative way of meeting their statutory responsibilities.” 24 The same
conclusions should follow in the case of children, and the time scales may well
be shorter, depending on the evidence of the harm which results from delay in
children who may be developing rapidly.
19. The Ombudsman has also criticised a failure to inform people of the
timescales involved in waiting for their cases to be assessed.
20. The Local Authority Complaints Process. Parents, carers or young persons
should consider complaining to local authorities using the complaints process,
if there are delays. They should ask for the complaint to go straight to “Stage
2” (the formal stage, when a reply should be expected within 28 days). The
Ombudsman is a further resource, if the complaints procedure fails.
21. Assessments of Needs by Health Bodies. There is a lack of explicit national
standards for NHS assessments. There is nothing comparable to the 35
19
Assessing Children in Need and Their Families: Practice Guidance, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.4.
Assessing Children in Need and Their Families: Practice Guidance, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.23.
21
Framework, Preface; R v London Borough of Islington ex parte Rixon (1998) 1 CCLR 119.
22
Framework, paragraph 3.11.
23
In a series of cases against Liverpool CC she held that ‘urgent’ assessments should take place in 2
months, ‘serious’ cases be assessed in four months and non-urgent ones in 6 months (Social Services
Encyclopedia Vol 3, D1/120/0/1).
24
Cited in Clements, “Community Care and the Law” p101 para 4.129.
20
5
working days standard for social services. The National Service Framework,
Standard Eight 25 defines the following as a ‘marker of good practice’: “Early
identification and intervention are provided through clinical diagnosis and the
Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families.
Interventions support optimal physical, cognitive and social development, and
are provided as early as possible with minimum waiting times.” The Standard
identifies access to rehabilitation and therapy services as a problem area, and
requires local authorities and primary care trusts to review local therapy
services to:
a. “Promote self-referal, simplifying the care pathway, and reduce
excessive waits that may affect a child’s development;
b. ..
c. Ensure that the supply of timely therapy services is sufficient to meet
the needs of children and young people who require it, based on
assessed needs. This may involve increased capacity to ensure all
children and young people attending early education settings and
mainstream or special schools have equal access to therapy.” 26
(emphasis added).
22. “Together From the Start” 27 requires that assessments, investigations and tests
should be organised “as expeditiously as possible with services at district
(secondary/local) and tertiary services setting waiting time goals.”
23. So local services should be:
a. Reviewing provision;
b. Setting waiting time goals;
c. Ensuring those goals, or any waits, do not damage a child’s
development; furthermore, in my view
d. It would also be good practice to provide alternative services in the
interim, to the extent possible. 28
24. Again, the NHS does have a complaints process (although it too is plagued by
lengthy delays). Ultimately, the Health Service Ombudsman can and does
investigate complaints about delays in referral and access to treatment, and can
award compensation for maladministration.
25. Assessments: Conclusion. In summary, in my view there is a legal obligation
on both health and social services to minimise and manage delays. If capacity
cannot be increased, then the Ombudsman recommends prioritising the most
urgent cases.
25
“National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services: Disabled
Children and Young People and those with Complex Health Needs” paragraph 3.15.
26
Paragraph 3.15, box.
27
“Together from the Start – Practical Guidance for professionals working with disabled children (birth
to third birthday) and their families” (DfES, DoH 2003), paragraph 2.5.
28
See the parallel with guidance for social services, both in relation to children (quoted) and in the Fair
Access to Care Services guidance for adults.
6
26. Reassessments. These should be scheduled in advance, and timely. In the
case of adult care services, the requirement is to hold a review at least
annually; major items of equipment should be reviewed as to their suitability
and safety on an annual basis. 29 Again, the standards seem to be less well
defined in the case of children’s services, but I can see no good reason why
they should be any poorer; they should be tailored to meet a child’s
developmental needs. The situation cited by BDF, of wheelchair services
failing to predict children’s needs, so that by the time a reassessment has taken
place and the child has then been placed on a 6 months waiting list, the old
wheelchair is completely unsuitable and may be doing great harm, seems to
me to be one of maladministration which could properly be taken up via
complaints procedures, Ombudsmen 30 or (as a last resort) the courts.
Issue C: The Weight of Expert Assessments.
27. Assessments of need carried out by social services authorities should be childcentred 31 (focussing on the child) and rooted in child development (so that the
appropriate developmental milestones are recognised and “the planned action
is timely and appropriate in terms of the child’s developmental needs”). 32
28. Any assessment should be ‘holistic’, taking into account the entire family
context. 33 For example, providing 2 specialist buggies to enable a single
mother to take 2 disabled twins out offends against this principle; a double
buggy is needed to enable her to take the children out. 34
29. It is very well established in relation to adult community care assessments that
the assessment must be tailored to needs, and not the services which are
available to meet them – service provision is a later decision. “It is easy to
slip out of thinking ‘what does this person need’ into ‘what have we got that
he/she could have?’” 35 Although the same principle is not made explicit in the
Framework for the Assessment of Need, it is, in my opinion, a principle which
should rationally be observed in any assessment of a child – whether by health
or social services. If an assessment demonstrates that the needs have become
subservient to the services available, and that needs have not been recognised
or distorted as a result, it should be open to legal challenge.
30. I have been asked what the weight of an expert assessment is, when a funding
body considers whether or not to provide the equipment or support
recommended by it. Any such funding body must recognise and respect the
expertise of the clinicians or other professionals involve. Thus, it should be
29
“Fair Access to Care Services: Guidance on Eligibility Criteria for Adult Social Care” DoH, 1
January 2003, paragraphs 60 and 63.
30
See for example case Northamptonshire County Council (05/B/611) on
http://www.lgo.org.uk/socserv.htm#Services%20for%20children.
31
See the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need, para 1.33. – 1.45
32
op cit, para 1.38.
33
The need to assess the family context is apparent throughout the Framework, as well as NSF
Standard Eight.
34
In legal terms, the argument could be framed both as a failure to follow guidance and as a failure to
take into account relevant considerations.
35
1991 Practice Guidance on the NHS and Community Care Act 1990; see further R v Islington LBC
ex parte Rixon (1998) 1 CCLR 119 at 129B.
7
unusual for a clinical recommendation to be overruled on the ‘simple’ basis
that it was wrong (for example, on the basis that the needs had been wrongly
assessed), provided that the clinical opinion appears sound and is properly
explained or justified. 36 A funding body would not generally possess the
expertise to ‘second-guess’ a clinician. If there is a disagreement, the reasons
for that disagreement must be clearly set out (and would be very carefully
scrutinised by the courts if the matter was before them). However, clinicians
or other professionals do not have the last word on funding. If their opinion is
properly respected, but the authority says that it is not their policy to fund this
particular need even when clinically established (eg, because it is not severe
enough to fall within their eligibility criteria), then the legality or rationality of
that policy will have to be attacked separately.
Issue D: National Guidance.
31. National guidance shapes local action. In relation to social services, I have
already referred to the “Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need
and Their Families” (2000), which remains the central document for the
assessment of needs of children under the Children Act 1989. A Common
Assessment Framework that will be used by all professionals working with
children is also being developed and ‘rolled out’ (by 2008, it is planned).
However, my understanding is that this Common Assessment Framework will
primarily be a new tool for conducting shared assessments, rather than
guidance on what services should be provided.
32. Both local authorities and healthcare bodies 37 are expected to follow ‘Every
Child Matters’ 38 , and the ‘National Service Framework for Children, Young
People and Maternity Services’, especially ‘Standard Eight: Disabled Children
and Young People and those with Complex Health Needs 39 , when
commissioning and providing services for disabled children and their families.
The guidance in (in particular) Standard Eight and the associated “exemplar”
on Complex Disability can be used as standards against which service
decisions can be measured. For example, Local Authorities and Primary Care
Trusts are enjoined to ensure that “Disabled children are able to use/access the
equipment and assistive technology they need in all places they typically
spend time (eg, school, home, short-term care settings).” 40 It has to be
recognised, however, that many of the statements in these documents are
couched in ‘aspirational’ rather than absolute terms, or represent standards
which the public bodies should be ‘working towards’ meeting. So, although
public bodies may be asked to explain what they are doing to meet the
standards, if reasonable accounts are given of progress planned or made, the
courts may not require anything more.
36
If the clinical opinion does not appear to make sense, for whatever reason, or can be seen to be based
on an inadequate assessment of, or knowledge of, the child, then it might be proper to disregard it, or at
least to seek clarification and/or reassessment.
37
In particular, commissioning authorities such as Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) but also NHS Trusts,
General Practitioners and other clinical specialists. I have tended to refer to all as ‘healthcare bodies’
but there would need to be a more detailed assessment of individual functions in individual cases.
38
DfES, 2004.
39
DoH, October 2004, Gateway Reference 3779.
40
Paragraph 3.20.
8
33. Further and more specialised guidance may be relevant, depending on the
exact issue. There is no substitute for checking to see whether additional or
new material is available which is relevant to a particular problem.
Issue D: The Importance of National Guidance.
34. I have already stated that Local Authorities should comply with national
guidance unless local circumstances indicate exceptional reasons which justify
a variation. Thus, in relation to local authorities’ duties to follow central
government guidance, Mr Justice Sedley described the position as follows:
"… in my view Parliament … has required local authorities to
follow the path charted by the Secretary of State's guidance, with
liberty to deviate from it where the local authority judges on
admissible grounds that there is good reason to do so, but without
freedom to take a substantially different course." 41
35. A general shortage of resources or staffing difficulties (problems common to
many if not all local authorities) would not constitute such “exceptional”
reasons.
36. The position in relation to NHS bodies and guidance from the Secretary of
State for Health is essentially the same. 42
37. Central government guidance would need to be distinguished from handbooks
or other publications from (eg) voluntary bodies. Such documents might
evidence good practice but they would not have the same status.
38. In practical terms, a serious difficulty can be that guidance is frequently not
prescriptive or clear. For example, we have seen that there is no fixed standard
for waiting times for assessments, in relation to assessments carried out by
healthcare bodies.
Balancing Resources and Needs.
39. Before addressing some of the more detailed questions asked by my clients
(Issues E - H), I think it is important to set out how decisions on providing
services may be made, and how central guidance is relevant.
40. When dealing with adult care services, local authorities are expected to draw
up “eligibility criteria” which ‘band’ needs according to whether or not they
are “critical”, “substantial”, “moderate” or “low”. 43 Under “critical”, for
example, would be included situations in which life is threatened or significant
health problems have or may develop, or “vital” involvement in work,
education or learning cannot or may not be sustained. The authority must
assess the likely cost of meeting each band of need, and decide which it can
afford to meet. It would be expected to meet the “critical” level of needs;
41
R v. Islington LBC, ex parte Rixon [1997] 1 CCLR 119, 123J-K; see also the Preface to the
Framework for the Assessment of Need.
42
R v North Derbyshire Health Authority, ex p. Fisher (1998) 38 BMLR 76 at 81, 89 - 90
43
See “Fair Access to Care Services: Guidance on Eligibility Criteria for Adult Social Care” DoH, 1
January 2003.
9
thereafter its ability to meet the needs of those in the lesser bands would
depend on its resources. So it might decide only to meet the “critical” needs;
or it might decide that it could also fund “substantial” needs, but not
“moderate” or “low” ones. 44
41. The resulting eligibility criteria will then be applied to the assessment of
needs, and a decision made on whether or not the needs will be met. Once the
authority has decided that the needs are ‘eligible needs’, it has a duty to meet
them and should make sure that services are in place to meet those needs.
42. It follows that, if a service user was assessed as being eligible for community
care services, it would not be acceptable then to:
a. State that ‘there is no budget’, or that the “budget has run out”, or that
(eg) equipment cannot be provided until the next financial year; 45
b. Place a person on a lengthy waiting list that had the effect of further
restricting access to equipment or rationing provision – this is a
disguised form of (a). 46 The service must be provided within a
reasonable time; or
c. Offer unsuitable equipment or vouchers which will not cover the cost
of the equipment which is needed;
d. Limit the numbers of pieces of equipment which will be provided to a
fixed number, eg one or two. 47
43. As far as I am aware, there is no central guidance on eligibility criteria for
children’s services which mirrors “Fair Access to [Adult] Care Services”. 48
However, the standards set by that guidance are relevant49 , and there is no
rational reason why eligibility criteria for children’s services could or should
be more restrictive than those for adults (there are arguments that they should
be less restrictive). Therefore, I consider that the observations on lawful
eligibility criteria made above at paragraphs 41 and 42 apply. For example,
there should be consistency of provision within the local area: Managers
should “monitor decisions following initial and core assessments … and
ensure that decisions are being made fairly and consistently for all children.
44
The extent to which the authority’s resources may be taken into account is however a complex one,
as the answer varies according to the statutory scheme being considered. For example, in contrast to
the position summarised above, when making decisions on Disabled Facilities Grants, a council may
not have regard to its own resources: R v Birmingham CC, ex parte Taj Mohammed [1999)]1 WLR 33
45
This is tantamount to making resources the single determinant in a decision, which is unlawful. See
R v Gloucestershire CC ex p Mahfood (1997) 1 CCLR 7 at first instance. It also offends because it is
arbitrary and discriminatory; those who apply later in the financial year receive worse treatment than
those at the beginning, for no good reason. All those within the eligible ‘bands’ should have their
needs met.
46
See R v South Lanarkshire Council ex p McGregor (2000) 4 CCLR 188.
47
If, once those one or two pieces of equipment had been provided, the user’s needs dropped below the
eligibility criteria, the position might change. For example, it might be that, with a hoist and a
wheelchair, a disabled person was reasonably independent. A specialist chair would also be desirable,
but it might be reasonable to regard the need for this piece of equipment as lower.
48
NSF Standard Eight enjoins local authorities to develop threshold criteria in partnership with health
and education and voluntary sector providers (paragraph 3.16).
49
Especially as they were developed in the wake of the Gloucestershire case, whose reasoning applies
equally adults and children.
10
Service users with similar needs receive packages of care that are capable of
achieving broadly similar outcomes.” 50
44. Furthermore, local authorities are meant to develop threshold criteria in
partnership with health and education and voluntary sector providers. All
eligibility criteria should be transparent – ie published and readily available. 51
This should make it easier to challenge unreasonable criteria. 52
45. Parents do face the hurdle of establishing that it is “necessary” to provide
services to meet a need. Thus, for example, the local authority may not accept
that it is “necessary” to supply specialist car seats. In relation to this example,
it seems to me that it would be necessary for the authority to ask itself whether
this was a need which flowed from the disability (yes), and whether it was
“necessary” to meet that need. It would not be unlawful to ask whether the
parents could reasonably be expected to meet that need 53 – but a policy which
rigidly stated that car seats would never be funded because parents should
provide car seats (despite the additional cost of an adapted one) or that the
council would meet the additional cost only, is likely to be unlawful. 54
46. Furthermore, when harsh decisions are made, in practice the Courts will
scrutinise the procedure used to reach decisions by exacting standards. 55
Issue D: Blanket Policies
47. I have been given the example of a local authority whose policy is to offer no
more than £750 towards the cost of a standing frame; ie to meet the costs of a
very ‘basic’ standing frame even when a very specialised one costing £13,000
is clinically indicated. The discussion below assumes that the family have not
been assessed as being financially able to contribute over £12,000 towards the
cost of the frame (see the subject of charges, below at paragraph 67).
48. It would be important to establish, first, that this was not a case where a
‘basic’ frame would meet the person’s needs and be adequate, but a more
specialist one would be more ‘desirable’. If this hurdle is overcome, then it
should be clear that the child’s ‘needs’ are not being met. This in itself may be
unlawful, provided the needs are severe enough. In the case of adults, if the
social care needs were ‘critical’ or ‘substantial’ they would probably be
eligible for funding under the local authority’s “fair access to care” eligibility
criteria. I have already stated (paragraph 43) that there is no discernable
reason why children’s eligibility criteria should be any less well developed, or
50
NSF Standard Eight, paragraph 3.16.
See NSF Standard Eight, paragraph 3.16, which also requires transparency and publication of
eligibility criteria. This also follows from Article 8 ECHR’s requirement that decisions must be
foreseeable to be lawful. Copies could also be obtained using the Freedom of Information Act.
52
For example, the rationale for agreeing to supply only a buggy that would be used indoors and
refusing to supply one if it would go outside is not immediately apparent.
53
R(S) v Wandsworth Borough Council (2005) 1 WLR 258.
54
R v North Yorks CC ex p Hargreaves [1997] COD 390. The decision relates to funding holidays for
disabled people but the principles are more generally applicable and relate to the unlawfulness of
‘blanket’ policies or fettering of discretion. See also R(Rogers) v Swindon PCT [2006]; it should be
possible to formulate exceptional cases in which the general rule will give way.
55
See R v Ealing LBC ex parte C (2000) 3 CCLR 109 as an example.
51
11
more unfavourable. Authorities are now expected to publish the threshold
criteria they use. 56 So that would be the first area to explore.
49. It is also generally unlawful to have ‘blanket’ policies which take no account
of the situation of individuals and their families. That is, an authority is
entitled to set eligibility criteria or other policies that are designed to ensure
consistent decision-making. Indeed, it should do, because of the need not to
make arbitrary decisions, and to ensure that like cases are treated alike.
However, the authority has to be aware of its residual discretion, and that it
still possesses the power to waive any guidelines. So it must be prepared to
listen to a parent or carer, etc, who says that this child should be treated as an
exception to the rules, and why. It should provide reasons for failing to make
an exception to the rules. I have discussed the example of a refusal to fund
specialist car seats at paragraph 45 above: a rigid refusal to even consider
funding such seats is likely to be unlawful.
50. It also follows that any refusal to assess need for an aid, etc, on the basis that
‘we don’t provide this’ may well be unlawful, as it ignores the possibility of
the case for an exception. This would need careful consideration in an
individual case.
Issue E: The importance of giving disabled children as near as normal a
life as possible.
51. I have already set out the terms of Schedule 2, Part I paragraph 6 of the
Children Act 1989, in which local authorities are enjoined to provide services
designed to “minimise the effect on disabled children within their area of their
disabilities” and “to give such children the opportunity to lead lives which are
as normal as possible.” 57
52. The Act does not apply to Primary Care Trusts. However, the language
echoes the language of (in particular) the UN Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, to which the UK is a signatory. Specifically,
Article 7 of that Convention states:
“Children with Disabilities.
1.
State Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure
the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human
rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other
children.
2.
In all actions concerning children with disabilities the best
interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
3.
State parties shall ensure that children with disabilities
have the right to express their views freely on all matters
affecting them….”
56
57
NSF Standard Eight, see discussion above.
Schedule 2, Part I paragraph 6, see also paragraph 8.
12
53. Public authorities are subject to Article 8 of the European Convention on
Human Rights (see further below) and, in interpreting that Article, regard
should be had to relevant international provisions such as the one just set
out. 58 So, in practice, these are principles to which all public authorities
should have regard.
54. In addition, both health and social care bodies are subject to duties under the
Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005. These include having “due
regard” to the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled
persons and other persons, and the need to encourage participation by disabled
persons in public life.
55. It is clear, therefore, that all public authorities should have regard to, and bear
in mind at all times, the principle of attempting to give disabled children as
near as normal a life as possible.
56. The difficulty is that this is not a ‘trump’ card which overrides all other
considerations – especially resources. There is no absolute legal entitlement
to ensure equality of outcome.
Issue F: Minimum Entitlements: the importance of protecting a child
from harm, and of protecting against a deterioration in that child’s
condition.
57. As a result of these difficulties and the wide discretion possessed by public
bodies in deciding what services to provide, I have been asked whether there
are basic but ‘absolute’ standards of health and social care provision, which a
local health or social services authority is required to meet.
58. In English law, there were traces of such arguments prior to 2000 59 , but no
favourable decisions based directly upon them. However, the European
Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”) is now directly enforceable,
through the mechanism of the Human Rights Act 2000. Two provisions are
particularly relevant:“Article 3 – Prohibition of Torture”
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.”
"Article 8 - Right to Respect for Private and Family Life"
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his
home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise
of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security,
public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the
58
59
R(A and B) v East Sussex CC [2003] EWHC 167 (Admin).
See McCowan LJ in R v Gloucestershire CC ex parte Mahfood (1997) CCLR 7 at 16I.
13
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and
morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."60
59. Article 3 protects against “inhuman and degrading” treatment. It sets a high
threshold, particularly when pain and suffering is not being deliberately
inflicted: the treatment complained of must, to a seriously detrimental effect,
deny the most basic human needs of a person. 61 Naturally occurring illness or
disability is not by itself, inhuman or degrading “treatment”; it falls within the
scope of the Article only “where it is, or risks being, exacerbated by treatment,
whether flowing from conditions of detention, expulsion or other measures,
for which the authorities can be held responsible.” 62 The state’s responsibility
for degrading conditions is most easily to be seen in cases involving the
custody of a prisoner. 63 At present, cases involving the provision of medical
care or aids are probably better analysed under Article 8. However, if
suffering has reached levels that would normally be regarded as engaging
Article 3, that would be a highly relevant consideration when considering
obligations under Article 8.
60. Article 8 protects a person’s ‘private and family life’. These are broad terms;
they include the “right to personal development and [the] right to make and
maintain relations with other human beings and the outside world.” 64 The
State’s obligation to “respect” this right may require it to take steps to
facilitate this personal development, if the failure to assist has sufficiently
severe consequences: “.. there may be positive obligations inherent in effective
respect for private life. A State has obligations of this type where there is a
direct and immediate link between the measures sought by the applicant and
the latter's private life.” 65
61. The English courts have now recognised that a failure to make basic social
welfare provision may (depending on its severity) amount to a breach of either
of these two articles. 66 In general, the predicament of an individual will need
to be severe enough to engage Article 3, but “Article 8 may more readily be
engaged where a family unit is involved. Where the welfare of children is at
stake, Article 8 may require the provision of welfare support in a manner
which enables family life to continue”. Even if the family is not facing
separation because of the failure to provide help, if “hideous conditions” mean
60
Also relevant is Article 14, which states: ““The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority,
property, birth or other status.” Discrimination on the grounds of disability would be covered by this
Article.
61
R(Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 3 WLR 1014; Lord Bingham at
paragraph 7.
62
Pretty v United Kingdom 55 EHRR I, 33, paragraph 52.
63
Eg, Price v United Kingdom (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 53
64
Zehnalova and Zehnal v Czech Republic (14 May 2002); Article 8 is “primarily intended to ensure
the development, without outside interference, of the personality of each individual in his relations with
other human beings.”
65
Marzari v Italy (1999) 28 EHRR CD175
66
See Anufrijeva v London Borough of Southwark [2004] QB 1124 and R(Limbuela) v Secretary of
State for the Home Department [2005] 3 WLR 1014.
14
that family life is “seriously inhibited”, then Article 8 may be held to be
infringed. 67
62. It is worth quoting the key passage from a judgment when the failure of a local
authority to meet the assessed needs of a family whose mother was disabled
and confined to a wheelchair was held to be in breach of Article 8:“33. Following the assessments in September 2000 the defendant
was under an obligation not merely to refrain from unwarranted
interference in the claimants' family life, but also to take positive
steps, including the provision of suitably adapted
accommodation, to enable the claimants and their children to lead
as normal a family life as possible, bearing in mind the second
claimant's severe disabilities. Suitably adapted accommodation
would not merely have facilitated the normal incidents of family
life, for example the second claimant would have been able to
move around her home to some extent and would have been able
to play some part, together with the first claimant, in looking after
their children. It would also have secured her "physical and
psychological integrity". She would no longer have been
housebound, confined to a shower chair for most of the day,
lacking privacy in the most undignified of circumstances, but
would have been able to operate again as part of her family and as
a person in her own right, rather than being a burden, wholly
dependent upon the rest of her family. In short, it would have
restored her dignity as a human being.” (emphasis added).
63. That was a case of a duty owed to accommodate an adult under s21 of the
National Assistance Act 1948, and one in which the duty to meet the need was
accepted. However, in principle a similar result should follow under the
legislation governing children’s needs discussed above, provided that the need
was accepted by the authority, or the facts are strong enough to sustain the
conclusion that it could not rationally be denied.
64. There is no doubt that a high level of suffering will need to be present before
Articles 8 or 3 would be infringed, and that litigation in this area would be
moving onto ground which, if not wholly new, is not well travelled.
Issue G: Contributions to costs, from parents
65. It is generally lawful to charge for local authority social services, provided that
the recipients can afford to pay. Thus, under the Children Act 1989, the
council must “have regard to the means of the child concerned and each of his
parents;” there are protections for those in receipt of income-related benefits.68
No one can be expected to pay more than they “can reasonably be expected to
67
Anufrijeva v London Borough of Southwark [2004] QB 1124 at paragraph 43, Bernard v London
Borough of Enfield[2002] EWHC 2282 Admin. See also R(A and B) v East Sussex CC [2003] EWHC
167 (Admin).
68
See Children Act 1989 s17(7) – (9) and s29 for the details. Charges cannot be levied without having
regard to the ‘means of the child concerned and each of his parents’, and there are protections for those
in receipt of benefits.
15
pay,” but it is generally lawful to ask for repayment of the whole or part of the
cost of providing local authority care services, if there are sufficient means.
The position under s2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
is substantially the same. Note that in R(S) v Wandsworth Borough Council
(2005) 1 WLR 2884, the Court also held that it was not unlawful to look at the
resources of third parties (such as parents) to decide whether or not it was
‘necessary’ to provide a service under s2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled
Persons Act 1970 69 .
66. By contrast, NHS services are provided free of charge. This is one of the
factors which may lead to arguments about whether or not needs are ‘health’
or ‘social’ ones, ie, whether or not a PCT or a social services authority should
provide funding.
Issue H: The obligation to give reasons, and transparency.
67. Reasons. In general terms, public bodies should give reasons for their
decisions. Assessments under the Children Act, for example, are meant to be
clearly reasoned statements which are discussed and agreed with parents or
carers. Similarly, if parents and children are to be involved in health planning
and care decisions (as is clearly envisaged), it follows that there must be an
entitlement to have the reasons for those decisions. This also follows from the
principle of giving informed consent to what are, by definition, forms of
treatment.
68. If reasons and care plans are not provided in writing, then they should be
requested. Except in very complex and rare cases where providing certain
pieces of information could be harmful to the health of the disabled child
himself (or herself), there really is no excuse for a failure to provide them.
69. Transparency. I have mentioned the requirement to publish policies or criteria
at various points. It is much harder to continue poor provision for disabled
children, or to allow these services to be ‘Cinderella’ services, if policies have
to be justified and the facts about provision – or the lack of it - are accessible.
70. It is therefore relevant to note that public bodies are now required to consider
and assess their practices in relation to disabled persons, including children.
In particular, public bodies were required to publish a “Disability Equality
Scheme” by December 2006, 70 setting out how each fulfils its duties towards
disabled persons, and how they assess the impact of their policies and practice
on disabled people. Those duties include having regard to the need to promote
equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons, and the
need to encourage participation by disabled persons in public life.
71. So if, for example, waiting lists before an assessment by occupational therapy
services are an issue, or delays in the provision of equipment after assessment
are an issue, these things should be discussed by the Scheme. The Scheme
should, in my view, make it plain what progress is being made to the review of
69
The position is the same under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
The Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) Regulations 2005, SI
2005/2966 and the Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005.
70
16
local therapy services required by the National Service Framework, 71 to take
one example.
72. In addition, local authorities are required to publish a Children’s Services
Plan, setting out the details of the services provided by them to (amongst
others) disabled children.
Issue H: Examples in which the courts have acted to protect disabled
children.
73. There are relatively few court cases that I am aware of, focussing directly on
the needs of disabled children to services and equipment. 72 There are more
cases involving access to adult social services, and I have drawn on those in
the advice above. Of course, the family courts act to protect the ‘best
interests’ of children, when their welfare needs are disputed, on a daily basis.
However, strictly that court has power only to declare what the best interests
are, and cannot command that resources follow its declarations. 73 The Special
Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal acts to secure (in particular) a
child’s right to a suitable education, but that area lies outside the scope of this
Advice.
74. Many cases concerning adults do, of course, involve children as part of the
family. See the Bernard case I have cited above at paragraph 62.
Furthermore, it is more than possible that the strongest cases will not get to the
stage of a reasoned and published judgment; they will be settled by the public
authority before that stage. So the influence of the courts is often invisible or
indirect.
75. Conclusion. The aspirations of treaties such as UN Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities is that disabled children should be able to
participate in the life of families and communities on as equal a basis as
possible. The United Kingdom is a signatory to that Treaty. In the UK, there
are widespread duties placed on public bodies to have regard to, and to
promote such aims. However, legal obligations tend to fall short of an
obligation to achieve this outcome. Public authorities have a wide discretion
to prioritise needs and to allocate resources amongst different groups.
Furthermore, although national guidance does limit those discretions, the
existing guidance has many gaps when it comes to children. Much is still left
to local bodies (for example, it seems there are no national examples of
suitable threshold or eligibility criteria).
76. Nevertheless, the central guidance for children that has been developed
recently is helpful in showing how authorities are expected to put children’s
needs at the centre of their decision-making, and to organise integrated
services around those needs. The recent trend towards requiring eligibility
71
National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services: Disabled Children
and Young People and those with Complex Health Needs” paragraph 3.15.
72
Of course there are some: see for example CD v Isle of Anglesey [2005] 1 FLR 59, in which a local
authority’s care plan for a 15 year old disabled girl was struck down as it failed to take account of her
expressed wishes, and placed unreasonable burdens on carers.
73
A v A Health Authority [2002] 3 WLR 24.
17
criteria or standards to be published is equally positive; transparent and
reasoned decision-making is more likely to be fair and consistent. Both the
courts and Ombudsmen will uphold standards of good administration, and
failures to meet them may be challenged.
77. Finally, the Human Rights Act 2000 offers a real possibility of developing
minimum standards. If a child’s life, health and social development are
critically compromised, the argument that the State has a ‘positive obligation’
to intervene and prevent such impairment is one likely to be further considered
and, it may be hoped, developed by the courts over the next few years. The
evidence which BDF has is that there are families with disabled children
whose basic needs are not being met. A campaigning charity such as BDF is
well placed to play a critical part in supporting such families, and helping to
secure legal rights to a basic ‘safety net’ of provision.
ELEANOR GREY
39 ESSEX STREET
22.4.07
18
BDF Newlife Press Statement Following Legal Report
Today the legal opinion we have sought leads us to believe that
many of the disabled children who have been forced to go without
essential equipment may be able to take legal action against the
statutory services who failed them.
These are children who have not received timely assessments, who
have been victims of inter-department funding squabbles, who have
been refused because of ‘blanket’ policies to deny certain types of
equipment, or those who have suffered injuries or worsening
conditions because of statutory services refusal.
If a case goes to court, statutory services will have to justify their
policies, be transparent in their decision making, show that they
acted properly and that there were truly exceptional reasons for not
following current guidance in the provision of equipment to children
with disabilities.
BDF Newlife
BDF Centre Hemlock Way,
Cannock Staffordshire WS11 7GF
Telephone: 01543 468888
Facsimile: 01543 468999
Email: [email protected]
www.bdfnewlife.co.uk
The UK’s leading child health
research and care charity
© BDF Newlife 2004
Birth Defects Foundation is a UK Registered Charity No 1001817

"It`s Not Too Much To Ask..." Report

Transcription

Similar documents

cpe power supplies - PCT International, Inc.

Product Information

PDF report

PDF Match Report

Trevor Thomas overcame blindness to become a long

Coming Up